The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 158

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

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Threads 1-50

Threads 51-100

Threads 101-150

Thread 151

Thread 152

Thread 153

Thread 154

Thread 155

Thread 156

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 157

[JHavard]

The Gospel of Peter may not be "gospel" but it is an historical document, and it doesn't fit your template. I would be interested to see you produce the census figures for the Parthian Empire that would substantiate your claim that the number of Jews there outweighed the number of Jews in Rome,

Am I wrong on this, but wasn't it your own Church that rejected that book? Why did they reject it?

You always try to make it seem as though it was authentic and inspired, but somehow the nasty Protestants snatched it out of the Bible and condemned it because it was too Catholic.

If the scholars of that day rejected it as a fraud or uninspired, you can not then go into it and pick out certain parts of it and say, "Yeh but, I don’t see anything wrong with this part of it." Face it, its junk, and none of it can be used or trusted.

[D-fendr]

"Who ever said we had to use a book of sample prayers…"

ahhh, no one says ya have to, but there's lots of books of prayers people use - kids prayers, prayers and hymns, prayers for times of loss, sickness, prayers people have composed for others reflection on, prayers that some religious orders put in books for others like this old codger with the bad memory.

Sorry lots of folks here seem to never have seen or heard of a book of prayers, I shoulda thought of that first, but then that's not the point of the story…

[D-fendr]

"the last thing in the world you want to do is to talk to him in a heart felt way. God forbid that anyone have a personal relationship with him. "

"I have done something very foolish, Lord. I came away from home this morning without my prayer book and my memory is such that I cannot recite a single prayer without it. So this is what I am going to do. I shall recite the alphabet five times very slowly and You, to whom all prayers are known, can put the letters together to form the prayers I can't remember."

[D-fendr]

Ok, I've found a corrected version of the story for those found the first in error.

Late one evening, a poor Southern Baptist farmer on his way back from the market found
himself without his favorite prayer book.

(by Stephen Shanklin with W. Terry Whalin which he got through the Southern Baptist Convention website.)

The wheels of his cart had come off right in the middle of the woods and it distressed him that this day should pass without his having said his prayers.

So this is the prayer he made: "I have done something very foolish, Lord. I came away from home this morning without my prayer book and my memory is such that I cannot recite a single prayer without it. So this is what I am going to do. I shall recite the alphabet five times very slowly and You, to whom all prayers are known, can put the letters together to form the prayers I can't remember."

And the Lord said to his angels, "Whoa, that sounds way too Catholic."

[Havoc]

So now we are relying on scholars?

Scientists dating things and showing how they managed to date the works, I can deal with. You all seem to base everything under the sun on a group of books that only you guys put any real weight in. Over time, the grouping has been peared down as volumes are found to be frauds. Many are still in question. And pretty much noone views them as sacred outside of Catholicism. EVEN many of you have been forced to admit that the authors disagree with each other. Though they disagree with the Bible as well - you could never admit that; but, you have. If they can't agree with each other and only one of them is right on any given issue or only a few are, then by definition, the ones who are wrong are in conflict with the Bible. OOps.. didn't think of that either did we.

If they can't be trusted, they can't be trusted. I don't care how many guys you line up and say "he believes us". How many times in history has the Catholic church made claims it couldn't prove only to turn around and find that not only were they not right, they weren't even close. How many deceptions have gone on regarding relics in Catholicism? Can you be honest about it? You always are careful to avoid approaching the fact that the RCC has absolutely no credibility. You turn around with the same tiresome attack over and over. I have no problem with accepting facts - ya'll just haven't shown any. You swallow the stories hook line and sinker. I'm not that gullable.

You can't seem to argue the scriptures either. The world of scholarship produced dates to the Books and that is the only thing you can attack; but without any credibility there either. I suppose dating methods used by science and archeologists employing methods of dating against the style of writing, known history and so on.. I suppose the whole world is in some kind of Vast Conspiracy against Catholicism for working to narrow the dates down as closely as they have been able to. Ya'll have no problem with the dates if they agree with you; but, as soon as they don't suit your purposes...

Got any way of countering what I've offered? Apparently not. You guys haven't been able to attack what I've layed out from the Bible. Do you not have evidence to call the Bible a liar or to show my conclusions wrong. Where is your proof that Peter was in Rome? Proof, not hearsay. You can't just out and call the Bible a liar on everything, can you.

Denial is a horrible thing.

[Havoc]

Thank you for the lesson on prayer.

Anytime.

[RobbyS]

Face it, its junk, and none of it can be used or trusted.

Face it, it exists as prima facie evidence. Apparently it reflects the opinion of the time, which is the early Second Century. The only way you can rebute this is to show it is a late forgery, say of the 5th century.

[RobbyS]

I suppose dating methods used by science and archeologists employing methods of dating against the style of writing, known history and so on.. And the consensus seems to be that during the period 70-95, all dating is no more than an educated guess.

[RobbyS]

Anf if started spouting snatches of unrelated Scripture, then he would say: "Now that what I like: babbling. I told them they should become as little children?

[JHavard]

"I have done something very foolish, Lord. I came away from home this morning without my prayer book and my memory is such that I cannot recite a single prayer without it. So this is what I am going to do. I shall recite the alphabet five times very slowly and You, to whom all prayers are known, can put the letters together to form the prayers I can't remember."

The more you show it, the bigger the piece of CRAP gets.

[ultimate]

Sometimes the only prayer I have is "Help". Does that meet with your approval?

[dadwags]

158:#69
"What is unfortunate about that ?"
The unfortunate part of that(wording changes in bibles) is that so much of our culture is loaded with scriptural prayers and quotations based on older translations . For example, how is the "Lord's Prayer" rendered (Matt 6:9-13, Luke 11:2-4) Also, lots of common sayings .

[dignan3]

Thank you for proving my corollary of SoothingDave's Law regarding Havoc. Namely, Havoc believes scholarship only when they agree with him and it can further his case. Otherwise, it's crap.

I am secure in the knowledge that Catholic, Orthodox, AND Protestant scholars agree on Peter's place of death. I am also secure in the testimony of the early Church.

As far as the Scriptures are concerned, all you can offer is a theory which you pass off as fact which is incredulous considering that the NT does not contain a comprehensive, all encompassing history of the Apostolic Age, nor does it pretend to.

That being said, I shake the dust off my feet and will have nothing more to do with you on this subject.

Pray for him

[dadwags]

158:#65
Havoc, who is that lady who comes by every few years and encourages us to pray to Christ ? She put a picture on Juan Diego's cloak in Mexico in 1540's .She has been interceding in Lourdes, France since the 1850's . she spoke to some kids in Fatima, portugal in 1917, predicting things like WWII .

[RobbyS]

Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto, where in the greatest sea battle since that battle of Actium, Don John of Austria led the fleet of the Holy leagueto victory against a Turkish force that aimed to invade Italy.

Chesterton's poemconcludes: Vivat Hispania! Domino Gloria! Don John of Austria Has set his people free! Cervantes on his galley sets the sword back in the sheath (Don John of Austria rides homeward with a wreath.) And he sees across a weary land a straggling road in Spain, Up which a lean and foolish knight for ever rides in vain, And he smiles, but not as Sultans smile, and settles back the blade.... (But Don John of Austria rides home from the Crusade.)

What a price Spain paid for having saved Europe from Islam, and without as much as a thank you. Rather we have the Black Legend formented by England, which sat out this fight. 16 P

[ultimate]

"That being said, I shake the dust off my feet and will have nothing more to do with you on this subject. "

Dignan,
You took the words right out of my mouth. I too will shake the dust from my feet and move on because reading these posts have become occasion of sin for me as anger rises in me at some of the arrogant, cocky and disrespectful stuff I've seen here. It's a Tower of Babel with some here for far less than noble motives it appears to me. I cringe when I see God mocked in this way.

In summary: This will gall some: the Catholic Church claims to have THE FULLNESS OF TRUTH .(intrinsic in this is that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and He is the only begotten son of the Father). and that non-Catholic religions have PORTIONS OF THE TRUTH IN VARYING DEGREES and that it is up to God to judge who will spend eternity with Him in Heaven or away from Him in Hell. The Holy Father recently confirmed this belief of the Church and I agree with it. And that is as far as Ecumenism goes. And that's all I've got to say about that. God bless you all.

[Havoc]

Let's face it, Havoc: Like Pope Criswell you are not willing to accept as evidence anything outside the New Testament, especially if that conflicts with your rendering of the New Testament.

Let's face it Robby, I won't accept it if it conflicts with the 66 books of the Bible. I won't accept it unless there is reliable basis on which to consider it weighty. It's called scientific method. Do you know how knitpicky egyptologists are - My pickiness pales in comparison. If you can't get it past me, it's no wonder you can't get it past many of them. I think they enjoyed as much as any the new find of Sainai in Saudi some time ago - noting that the RCC had officially id'd another site ages ago on pretty much no evidence. The Saudis have gated the site of the real deal. But, we should just take ya'lls scholarly word for it all - right. How many other sites have been Id'd by the RCC on as little evidence. It's not like this is something no one knows about. I have an older brother that was over there and visited the site - brought back all kind of pictures. He's not a Christian, and I can't tell you what he said when he realized what ya'll were doing with the site. But see, the RCC called it the 'traditional' site. That is to say, hold it up as solid because it's tradition, then quietly back away and say 'well we had it on reliable information..' after the fact. It's solid because it's tradition; but it's not your fault because it's tradition. See how that works? Make it up as you go, apply a word and you have a perfect scape goat when the eggs start flying. BTW, there's still some on the face over that one - among others.

You see, I do know what goes on. I make it my business. And I'm smart enough to see when things just don't add up. Smart enough to see that all through the period that Paul is in Jail, there are Major names in the early church brought in by the Apostles that are in and out of Rome regularly visiting Paul without any problem. How is it that Peter would have to hide? If everyone else save for Paul can come and go as they please without any trouble whatsoever, why is Peter apparently the only one that needs to Hide to be there? I mean, I know he was in Babylon because He said as much. I just don't understand your hokey story about him having to Hide. The Neroan persecutions didn't have a long term affect on visitors to Paul.

I know you have no answers. Because you have no evidence of any of it either. Not a single letter found written from Rome from Peter. Not a single epistle, Not a Gospel. Not a shopping list, a home address. Not a letter of invitation. No name on a census. No tax ledger bearing his name. No first hand stories of his actions and deeds there (other than forged ones). None of the others writing of his presence there or acknowledging a trip there. No, the people we hear from come from the second century well after he died. How do they know anything - hearsay or somebody made it up - who knows. They sure as heck don't know it first hand.

[Havoc]

And the consensus seems to be that during the period 70-95, all dating is no more than an educated guess.

Interesting that we aren't working in that time frame isn't it. The date references I've given are before that period and after that period. But not one falls in that period. So what particular point are you trying to make?

[Havoc]

she spoke to some kids in Fatima, portugal in 1917, predicting things like WWII .

The devil?

[Havoc]

LOL. Right. I offered it as theory, stated it as theory - not fact. Offered up the argument, and once again, you guys can attack and present no facts to back up your story. And you cannot discount the theory I presented. So the line is attack me to make me seem unreasonable and withdraw smuggly uttering the same nonsense in absence of argument or evidence. You guys are full of claims and have no answers to the questions arrising from the claims. And you can only produce unproven hearsay. No Church was founded on Peter. And Peter didn't go to Rome.

I'll accept anything you can produce that has some weight to it - proven in other words. I don't blindly accept anything. And if I find it to be in error, out it goes. I know I wasn't taught wrong. Who taught you?