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
Just as the Assemblies of God have 16 Fundamentals of Faith that must be adhered to, so too, does the Catholic Chuch have dogmas that must be adhered to in order to be a Catholic. That is why the Canon of the Bible is so important. It is one of those fundamentals that must be believed by all believers. Thus, when Luther, of his own accord, removed books from the established Canon of the Bible, he stole from all succeeding generations of Protestants, Fundamentalists, etc., their patrimony.
I seriously doubt that this is being taught at an AOG church, but far stranger things have happened. :(
I sincerely hope that they are not teaching this, as the doctrine of the Trinity is one of most beautiful of Christian teachings.
The problem is the failure of the reader to understand the author's style and intent.
I am of course offering my own perspective on the matter. If you wish to read the gospels as you do, that is certainly your prerogative.
No interpretation is required to understand clear commands when we're talking about the movements of people …..I would submit that if you cannot read and properly understand that, you should never have been allowed to graduate from school.
I was referring to your rant on Thread 150, #182 where you make a lot of scriptural assumptions and also your ability to interpret 1 Peter 5:13 and the book of Revelation. I would submit if you want to continue to assert your interpretations as being infallible, you should publish a catechism so we can all benefit from your theological superiority.
As regards II Peter, It was cannonized and majority opinion was that Peter wrote it. I'd suggest that if you don't like that, you should take it up with the scholars that drew the final conclusions. That group of scholars proffered it up. You are the one attacking it.
I am not attacking 2 Peter. I merely stated a fact. There is greater doubt about its authorship than any other NT book. I then cited 4 (not 2) examples of why many scholars call this work pseudonymous. You then made the arrogant comment,
" And I can debunk them pretty quickly with modern parallels. And with parallels of the day. "
And your response is "majority opinion was that Peter wrote it". That’s it? That’s your defense? How do you know the majority said this? Cite your source. Careful though, its got to be from a Catholic Council. What about my examples? I thought you were going to debunk them pretty quickly with your famous parallels? You stated you have read the stuff too and also read the assenting views. Tell us what you read.
And try something other than diversions. If you want to redeem yourself of the mess you created before, you should try providing some scholarship to support your arguments re Babylon.
I've already acknowledged the fact you don't accept any documentation a Catholic provides on this matter so I am through discussing it with you. You are the one who made the boastful claims about 2 Peter. I'm just calling you on it.
The Catholic understanding of this phrase is that Christ gave the Church His assurance that she would always teach sound doctrine. Since we know Christ cannot lie, this assurance is true. This is also confirmed in 1 Tim 3:15 where the church is referred to the pillar and the foundation of truth.
I'll take a stab at it. First, Matthew 16:18 from the KJV, the Douay-Rheims, and the Latin Vulgate editions.
KJV: 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Douay-Rheims:And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Latin Vulgate:Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam. (for those who don't read Latin, it translates word for word as the examples above.)
As we can see from above, both Catholic and Protestant Bibles agree verbatim.
Webster's Dictionary defines prevail as 1.to gain ascendancy through strength or superiority: Triumph, 2. to be or become effective or effectual.
Cassel's Latin/English dictionary translates praevaleo, the infinitive of praevalebunt, as to be very strong, to prevail, to get the upper hand. (Webster's # 1 definition)
The Catholic understanding is that the gates of hell, that is Satan and his minions, will not triumph over, (destroy) the Church. The Church shall remain until the end of time. This does not mean that Satan will not try to destroy the Church, just that he will not win this battle. It is conceiveable that Satan could wreak so much havoc that only a small, apparently insignificant remanent would remain, but she would still remain upon the earth.
This also means, and even more importantly, that the Church shall always, without fail, infallibly teach correct doctrine and morals. This does not mean that some of her officials and members will not teach contrary doctrine or morals, but that the Church shall always keep the deposit of faith intact, as was passed down from Jesus through the Apostles.
The mistaken notion falls more in line with Webster's # 2 definition of being effective or effectual. Some see the various wounds and scars that the Church has suffered as a sign of hell's prevailing, that is having a negative effect upon the Church. Thus they see the various heresies, schisms, bad popes and clergy, and even the bad things that go on today, as hell having its way with the Church. Or they see contrary teachings of CINO thelogians, for example, such as homosexual relations being an acceptable lifestyle, as another sign of hell's prevalence. What people forget is that Jesus predicted that bad things would happen to the Church, but that He also promised His protection.
Unfortunately, many people, including some Catholics, expect an ideal church where everyone is absolutely perfect. They apparently forget that man is fallen, that he, of his own free will, will try to thwart God's plan. They also seem to forget that the Church is for sinners and not for mythical perfect men.
History shows us that the Catholic Church has wheathered many storms throughout her 2000 years of history. She still today, not only stands as Christ's visible Church upon the earth, but she still holds to and teachs the same, unchanging Truths that her founder, Jesus Christ entrusted to her.
Ok, I've read your - how many rants does this make in trying to change the topic again after completely blowing your citations? Ok, Lets backstep a few paces to see why and where you are taking us:
* I proffered that there is no evidence that Peter went to Rome
* I requested proof of it *if* he actually did.
* After two and a half threads - no proof.
* Since you couldn't prove Peter went to Rome, the subject changed - even I was tired of asking for proof of it.
* The subject then became whether or not I Peter 5 says that Peter was writing from Babylon, as the text states - or from Rome, which you proffer is what is actually meant.
Now, you further proffered that Babylon means Rome in the verse cited because of Common usage from the time. Quoting to me for examples 4 Esdras, 3:1 wich is dated to 100AD - 45 years after you guys say Peter died. You offered a quotation from the Sibylline Oracles which could date to as late as 200AD - 145 years after you guys proffer that Peter died. Then you also Quoted The Apocalypse of Baruch, which Deals with the Babylonian Captivity in actual Babylon and makes absolutely NO reference to Rome, Italy in the guise of Babylon - not one. Zero.
So when your citations are found to be bunk, rather than address it and stay on topic, you resort to attacking Peter's second book - quickly retreating from I Peter 5 argument, to save face maybe? At any rate, another Change of Topic. Tell me, Can we expect to keep you on any given point here or are we going to watch you just take running swipes at different issues without addressing them and backing up Your assertations. I understand you really want to push Me off balance to make Me look like the one flubbing up here; but, I'm not going for it. Are you going to prove foundation for your common usage claim (your claim that rome=Babylon in I Peter 5)? Are we going to be entreated to zero proof of this claim too? Mind you this is the second topic in a row - or in baseball terms 2 up 2 down. I'm willing to accept that because this isn't about me winning - its about all of us here and the lurkers seeing just what the arguments are and whether there is *any* weight to them.
So, The Subject is whether or not you can show that I Peter 5 has anything whatever to do with Rome, Italy. If you wish to surrender that argument and admit that you have no evidence to prove common usage in Peter's time frame, we're done with that issue. If you then want to consider other issues, I'd be happy to oblige you on behalf of those present. But, let's not have you come back to the conversation painting me as the one with shoddy scholarship to date on this subject. The only citations you have provided to debunk anything I've said on this line since the topic originally changed from 'was Peter ever in Rome' have been shown to be garbage. I've offered scripture and accepted dates for the time periods in which they were written for my arguments. You haven't attacked any single point with any challenge as to accuracy or offered anything in way of specific challenge to a single point - other than I Peter 5, again, which thus far is your shining moment. You've made broad swipes in rhetoric in absence of any real argument - that is called losing the argument without grace (or bad sportsmanship).
I know you think you *need* to make me look like I'm the one who screwed up here. But people have both eyes and brains Pegleg. And I have to tell you, your side isn't looking good even from the cheap seats. LOL. If the cheap seats can see it, perhaps it's time to call China and some other disruptors back in to smear me so my presentations don't look as damaging?
Oh, and I nearly forgot this, so I must back up and address it. This statement of yours needs a scoop and broom. I bit on your citations. I bothered to read them. Anyone in here can look up ALL THREE books that you cited on the web and get date information on them and read the commentaries and in some cases the books themselves. And I would heartily recommend that everyone do so. If anyone needs help finding the material, I'd even be happy to look it up and provide links to the material. No problem with it at all.
It isn't that I dismiss anything you produce out of hand. It's that I dismiss it unless the source is credible. Vastly different than your broad swipe. I dismiss the apocryphals as having no real weight, I still checked the sourcing on those that you proffered and blew them flatly out of the water for that which they were offered up on. Again - as can anyone caring to read the material. It's not a matter of my opinion. It's plain as day.
Perhaps you should let someone else pick up where you dropped the ball. Maybe someone who can research and present something that doesn't waste all our time. If you screw up, the idea is to admitt it and move on with proving your point, not attack the other side and try to make it look like they're the one being shoddy.. unless you're waging a propaganda war anyway..
This describes your church and exposes it's ancient deceptions and hypocricies.
1 Timothy 4
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
That would be just wonderful! It would be nice to be able to actually discuss the issues without having to constantly redirect the conversation back to the actual point at hand due to hollow rhetoric.
Just for kicks, in the story the Papal Nuncio and the Jesuit are working with a local Chinese Baptist pastor (the horror) in an apparently pivotal plot sequence (I say apparently for I haven't finished the book). And I thought of the Never Endings.
The problem enters in (in my mind) not on the definition regarding necessarily the Gates of hell prevailing. It enters in with the definition of what the Church is. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles refer to the Church as an institution but as a body of believers. Jesus himself also goes to some length in defining who the believers are. So, ultimately, there is no institutional promise; but, rather a promise to believers who keep the faith.
So what we have here is a misapplication of a promise made to believers. It doesn't mean that Clergy can't have a promise not to be prevailed against so long as they keep the faith, it just means that same promise belongs to the entirety of the Christian world that keeps the faith. It is not deposited solely in any given man or group of men - an error that has been applied to the holy Spirit's operation as well.
Given this difference in approach, where can you show us that Jesus or the Apostles create an institution and shift the word Church from the believers to the institution and forever after apply all these promises to believers strictly on the institution.
Exactly. As shown in verse twenty, the subject, ie. rock, was the belief that Jesus was the Christ. This belief is that rock and is the continuing subject of this exchange.
Matthew 16
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Thank you for adding that. The entire focus is on who Jesus is and on the proclaimation of faith. All our strength as Christians reside in that proclaimation followed by the lessens of John 10 among others. Without the proclaimation, there is no body of believers - not even one single believer. And Satan is powerless against the proclaimation of faith. As another example in the Bible shows us, only a beleiver has any authority over the devil (Acts 19:15). The Proclaimation is our foundation. Without it, there is nothing for God to build upon in our lives. And so long as we stand upon it in obedience to God, we cannot be touched. The gates of Hell cannot stand against *that*.
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.