The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 152

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

His ministry was to the Jews and the biggest concentration of Jews in the world were not in Rome or even Italy, but in the area of Judea - until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. OOPS.

Don't know if this has any relevence here, but in the first century C.E., the largest concentration of Jews in the world was NOT Judea. The Diaspora began with the fall of the First Temple. When the Persians conquered Assyria and allowed the Jews to return to Israel, only a portion of the Jews returned. During Roman times, there were Jews in every significant city in the empire. The largest numerical concentration of Jews in the first century, though, remained in the Persian Empire, in the land formerly known as Assyria. That is, Babylon. It was the Jewish community there which compiled the Babylonian Talmud. Baghdad remained the center of Jewish learning until medieval times.

[saradippity]

Please, there is absolutely no evidence of Peter having a wife that was alive when Jesus called him. And don't tell me that even the Catholic Church does not deny it because in this case I think they may not have thought it was anything to hang their hat on because it did not matter. However I now think it probably does matter and I repeat there is no substantive evidence that he hung around with anybody but his mother-in-law. With respect to Corinthians 9;5 there is a difference of opinion between translations and the Douay-Rheims and the NAB both say the scripture reads women or sisters. I saw the Vulgate and it does not say uxor which I remember from Latin meant wife. So I will agree to disagree but I think I am correct and think you need to consider why if he had a wife she let her old mother get out of bed and "serve" the men. I"ve a good mind to call Patricia Ireland and the troops from NOW on those men right now. So there!!!

And those gals could probably deal all of Christendom the death blow,so you just be careful.

[Proud2BAmerican]

So just as God's inspired Scriptures are subject to errors of humans, so is his Church subject to errors of humans.

----

Are you saying that the Apostles could err while teaching the faith (that is, make mistakes in their oral teachings), but only when they put pen to paper were they protected by the Holy Spirit from the possibility of including error? Or do you believe that the Apostles were incapable of teaching error both verbally and in their writings?

[RichardMoore]

Forgive me if I am perceived as butting in here, but my favorite author who just happens to be one of the greatest converts, Mr G K Chesterton said it best of all when asked what made him become a Catholic. He said, "There are only two reasons for becoming a Catholic and they are that it has the Truth whether you like it or not and it is the only place where you can be sure that you can get forgiveness of your sins." As a convert myself I would like to add that this assurance is entirely Biblical and i'm sure you've all read it.

[malakhi]

Hi RichardMoore! Thanks for your comments. Feel free to stick around or to jump in at any time.

[Havoc]

Thank you Angelo. I rather meant the region more than the physical constraints of its borders, but, you drive the point home better than I did.

[Havoc]

it is the only place where you can be sure that you can get forgiveness of your sins.

The only place from which one can get forgiveness of sins is from God. The Catholic Church cannot forgive your sins - Neither can any other.. only God can do that.

[Havoc]

Peter's wife is documented in the Bible. When he married has little impact on your story. That he was married is without doubt, seemingly, to everyone but you. And trying to make excuses to get around it doesn't change the fact that it's documented in the Bible. To heck with the interpretations - it's in the Greek, and that's good enough. People have a tendancy to translate out of the Bible, things that bother them. The Catholic retranslation of the commandment regarding Idolatry is a benchmark in screwball translations that is pretty well documented. I'm not talking about merely mistaking it's meaning - I'm talking about a thourough rewrite that destroys the language.

[OLD REGGIE]

We understand the message of the books to be inspired, taken along with the circumstances of the intended audience. We recognize the Holy Spirit inspiring the author to write only truth. We don't get to personally decide, based on the placement of the first person pronoun and wishful thinking, which statements to take as "God" and which as merely "Paul."

2 Timothy 2:

7 Think over what I say, for the Lord will grant you understanding in everything.

I think this just about says it for Paul. His writings are full of I's, I think, I say, and the like. He is; however careful to make it clear when he is speaking for Paul and when he is speaking for the Lord.

I find it dangerous to decide for yourself which statements are to be taken as inspired and which are to be considered personal opinion. And discerning between the two.

No so with Paul. It is usually pretty clear.

I am not a literalist when it comes to Paul's letters. You are a literalist when it comes to relegating women to second class status but a generalist in other matters. Any reason why???

I think we all like to take certain things literally. You like the thing about calling no man "father" I like some of the stuff about "unless you eat my flesh..." The trick is getting us to agree on the same interpretation of the same things.

1 Corinthians 10:

4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

That doesn't leave itself to interpretation. It certainly doesn't say thr Rock was Christ and Peter.

One thing I've learned from more fundamental Bible Christian types is that when ofered a choice, Scripture should help us understand Scripture and that the simpler meaning should prevail when at all possible and not injurious to the faith.

Exactly what do you mean by "not injurious to the faith". That is exactly why, even to this day, the RCC doesn't want the laity to be reading the Bible without "guidance".

[Havoc]

Not everything every father wrote is infallible.

Indeed, nothing they wrote is of necessity infallible. The thing we see that ya'll tend not to see is that you pick and choose from among the things they say and use what benefits your philosophies while cutting the rest loose like a bad catch. That they are unreliable at best is without question. The reliable stuff is what we keep to - that is why we have 66 books and ya'll have substantially more, we cut loose the unreliable garbage and call it what it is. Ya'll wade through it picking out shiny bits of aluminum here and there, polish it and say "look, gold." Never mind that our mineral guide calls it aluminum. It isn't gold unless the guide agrees it is.

[OLD REGGIE]

I have no argument with the CathEn or with Augustine and other Church fathers. They saw what they saw and used the passage for certain points. This does not mean that the Scripture can not also be used to make other points. Not everything every father wrote is infallible.

The fact remains that, yes, we can say that the keys are useful for opening and closing Heaven. But that's not all they are good for.

Your tradition stops there. Mine does not. The keys symbolize a complete transfer of power to the handling of all affairs on this earth. Not just in opening and closing the gates of heaven, not just in binding and loosing.

WOW!

Mathew 23:9

And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Mathew 23:9 isn't speaking of your dad. There is only one Father and he isn't on this earth.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

I'm talking about a thourough rewrite that destroys the language.

Finally, we find something that we can all agree that you are an expert at!

[Havoc]

Not everything every father wrote is infallible.

Sorry, as Columbo said, "Just one more question": (lighting the cigar), actually, rather more of a statement. These guys are reliable as long as it suits your purposes to say so, but when they are used against you, they somehow become unreliable. Now when I state it rather boldly, I'm barbecued for stating the obvious by the likes of you, RobbyS, Pegleg, Romulus, etc. When you try to carefully couch it, are we supposed to bite and say 'ah yes, I see your point,' then forget it? LOL. Too rich. Either they are reliable or they aren't. If they are to be considered reliable, you have a problem. If they aren't reliable, you have a problem. Either way, you're stuck. God is not the author of confusion.

[Havoc]

China, as usual, if you have something of use to say (and it would be rare if you do), say it. It get's old asking you to frame an argument instead of spewing rhetoric.

[poet]

Don't you receive the "keys" when you sincerely and with all your heart your accept Yahshua Messiah as your Savior and Redeemer?

Bottom line, after reading all the posts of varying interpretations, I still maintain that in order to understand what is being said is to know the Hebrew and Greek writings. Everything else is opinion which will a constant source of diagreement.

If indeed we are all Christians, then we should show fellowship to each other whether we are Catholic, Protestant or whatever. Christ is the only important factor and I might add, the common denominator with us, therefore, everything else is meaningless semantics.

[RobbyS]

And Jews as far away as China. Years and Years ago, Life Magazine had a cover--I think--showing the faces of Jews around the world. Every sort of face from Swedish to Ethiopians to Chinese.

[JHavard]

Please, there is absolutely no evidence of Peter having a wife that was alive when Jesus called him. And don't tell me that even the Catholic Church does not deny it because in this case I think they may not have thought it was anything to hang their hat on because it did not matter.

I find it interesting that you believe that Peter was in Rome, with out one shred of proof, but you seem ready to argue to the grave that Peter wasn't married.

Or you say his wife was dead because he still had a mother in law, and that Christ would never have called them if they were married.

Well I think you are wrong on both points,

Mt 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

If his wife was dead, why would it say his wife's mother? By this statement, he is first acknowledging the wife, then the relationship between them.

The term "mother in law" was commonly used, see Mt10:35 and Lk 12:53, and if his wife had been dead, he would have simply referred to his wife's mother as the mother in law.

You said that Jesus would never call married men away from their family

Mt 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

If Peter forsook all, what was his all he forsook?

Mk 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,

28. Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee. 29. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,

This statement was made by Christ, and was to these men, but inclusive for time to come, but the simple statement is that between the 12 disciples, all of them had forsaken someone, either, parents, brethren, wife, children, sisters, and since there is ample proof that Peter was married, and his wife was still alive, what are the odds that Christ was referring to one of the other disciples, and not Peter?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

SHOW ME IN THE BIBLE WHERE THESE PROMINENT CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ARE FOUND.

Where in the Bible do we find Peter assuming and exercising the role of a Catholic pope?

Where does the Bible say the early churches treated Peter in a papal fashion?

Where does the Bible say that one man is the head of all churches?

Hi JHavard

BigMack

[RobbyS]

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.

To answer THIS question, maybe. But then he, like our friends here wanted them to use Rome rather than Babylon. The traditional dates can be interpreted to mean the interval between his first arrival in the city and his death. Peter did not "govern " there, because he was, like Paul, first and foremost an apostle. He was on the road most of the time. Was Paul a Bishop? I think he is also claimed as a founder by Alexandria, which also had a large Jewish colony.

[Conservative til I die]

" No, he just said he was the rock upon which the Church would be built. "Pope" means "Father" and "Catholic" means "Universal." These words are just descriptions. The fact that Jesus doesn't use those exact words is immaterial. He also never used the word Trinity. catholic means "universal". Catholic means a particular Church. Big difference.

Actually, they were synonomous until (not counting the Orthodox) Martin Luther declared himself a god basically. The remaining catholic Church was called the Catholic Church. "Pope" means "Father"!!!!!! MatT. 23: 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. O.k. Have it your way.

I'll stop referring to my dad as my father then. C'mon, this is like, 5th grade level polemnics! What's next, saying that Papal Infallibility means the Pope is absolutely perfect?