Posted on 10/05/2001 3:08:36 PM PDT by malakhi
| 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
:) Wasn't really intending to be funny; but, it is funny. I just can't understand how someone can straight faced make some of these claims without knowing their stuff or using any level of common sense when it truly does apply. The same guys that yap and yell reason when it comes to things of a spiritual nature (in defiance of God's word that man's reason cannot of itself understand the spiritual things) cannot apply reason in matters where it is useful. It shows how much they just buy what's handed to them without doing any critical analysis and it's sad.
Greek is what is called a declined language. That means that if "rock" is the subject it looks like one thing. If it's the direct object it looks like another. If it's "rock's" (possessive) it looks like another. If it's the subject of a preposition (i.e. - on the rock), it will have another form. And do it all over again for the plural. That's where you get the different spellings. It's a class a noun feminine.
So the subject (and I'm going from memory) is petra (the funny connected "t"s being the "p" sound like that old math friend Pi). The genitive (possessive without getting too technical) is petras (singular). The dative (object of a prep. and some other things) is petra with an iota under the alpha. The accusative (direct object and other things) is petra, again (though it can have other forms, sorry). Pl. subject (nominative) is petrai. then Pl. genitive is Petron (long o, omega, looks like a "w"). Pl. dative is petrais. Pl. accusative is back, confusingly enough, to petras.
I'm sure that cleared it up :)
Invocation of prayer to someone who is dead in the flesh. IE necromancy - Ask the well educated in judaism and see how big a no no this is. Jesus didn't change the law or do away with it. His affect was on the sacrifice and approach to God. This doctrine stands squarely opposed to both Christianity and Judaism from which Christianity sprung through the Messiah. It is blasphemy.
Your assumption of Clement being a fraud puts you in the most extreme of minorities(again). The legitimacy of Clement is accepted by respected patristic scholars, both Catholic and non-Catholic. But we're suppose to take your word over theirs again, right?
And the author of Revelation states plainly that the message he writes is from God, not from himself. Therefore, it doesn't establish common usage [of Babylon=Rome].
That is another huge assumption on your part which doesn't necessarily follow. The association of Rome with Babylon wasn't rocket science to the early Christians. I can imagine someone reading the book of Relevation's use of Babylon and saying, "Gee, why didn't we think of that." Give me a break.
Ireneus[sic] isn't the tower of credibility either.
So now Irenaeus is a fraud!?! Only in your eyes. You assumption once again has placed you in the extreme minority(perhaps a minority of one). Give us one example of a respected scholar who thinks as you do in regards to Irenaeus.
II Timothy was written between 65-67.
I didn't know that the books of the NT had dates in them. This is another assumption on your part. This just proves SoothingDave's Law ragarding Havoc. You use a certain philosophy to date the NT books but, since by your own standard that "All philosophy is garbage", it is an argument that you can't make.
Your case is built on a foundation of very convenient assumptions. Assumptions like that pretty much every extra-Biblical book is a fraud, that Revelation HAD to have been the first usage of Babylon=Rome, and your whole NT dating scheme theory, which if you were true to your principles is an agrument you can't make.
This is why I believe that Peter was martyred in Rome:
1. The Babylon reference in 1 PeterYet you wish us to discount all of that for your wacked out theory. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
2. The UNANIMOUS testimony of the early Church that Peter was martyred in Rome
3. The fact that no other city has EVER claimed to be the site of Peter's martyrdom (the early Church was kind of observant of those type of things)
4. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox don't deny a Petrine martyrdom in Rome(which should be exhibit A for them if it wasn't true)
5. The archeological evidence
6. The fact that it wasn't disputed by anyone until 1600-1700 years after the fact.
Pray for John Paul II
The books of the Nt are dated using knowledge of things from the time that fit occurances in the books, among other things. Some of them cannot be dated accurately and some not at all. One of the reasons that II Peter is contested as being written by Peter happens to be the fact that many scholars place it's date of authorship at latest around 67 AD. The majority of Scholars last time I looked agree that Peter died around 67. Which is at odds with the Catholic view of things. Catholicism dates his death at 65AD by the testimony of another here. In which case Peter would have been dead by the end of the year that II Timothy would have been written at the earliest. The dates are not philosophy. You seem to need a lessen in the application of usage of the word. The dating methods are applied science. The dates I use in my recitations are those that are the most widely agreed upon by scholars.
You continually want to paint my conclusions as extremist with regard to the apocryphals. Jesus was more extreme than I am to date. The fact is, you don't have any authority whatever propping up the apocryphals - none. They have not been proven to have any level of historic accuracy and they are definitely of zero authority as regards use as scripture. Zero authority on the scriptural level tells us that the bank is bust on any weight that could be given by that virtue alone. Finally, who has presented and pushed it with a long proven track record for fraud and deciet? Credibility level on a scale from 0 - 100 just dropped from 0 into the negatives.
This is why I believe that Peter was martyred in Rome: 1. The Babylon reference in 1 Peter
A) No shown or proven common usage of the concept Rome=Babylon during the Period in which this book was written.
B) The Largest concentration of Jews on the Planet Centered around Judea and Babylon.
C) Peter's ministry was to the Jews as Primary.
D) It is more easily believeable in light of the above and other supports in the Bible that Peter was in Babylon.
2. The UNANIMOUS testimony of the early Church that Peter was martyred in Rome
A) This is claim based on unproven testimony of works rejected on the basis of lack of authority.
B) There is no Unanimous testimony. Fact is, aside from the books of zero authority you want to prop up with, there is no testimony.
C) Peter's Testimony, unless you can prove him a liar, is that he was in Babylon.
D) Paul's testimony is that he had to send outside Italy to get Mark - who was with Peter. Have to call him a liar too.
3. The fact that no other city has EVER claimed to be the site of Peter's martyrdom (the early Church was kind of observant of those type of things)
So if he'd died in the forest in the middle of China with no one to see, as long as nobody can prove it, you're claim is fact? Just illustrates the absurdity of the argument. The Brits claim he came to England; but, that bothers you because they present as much evidence as you guys - not much of anything. They are whacked because they have no evidence; but, while you lack any yourselves, you are the keepers what - the slightly less funny claim because you make it. Get real.
4. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox don't deny a Petrine martyrdom in Rome(which should be exhibit A for them if it wasn't true)
A)Because they bought into the same bull and are catholics themselves we should believe there version of Catholics rather than what we know.... Not.
B)They disagree with you on Primacy, should we take their word on that too? Afterall, the very argument your making was used alongside fraudulent documents to buttress the claims to primacy that pushed a wedge between your two rites. So they didn't buy all the hot air either
5. The archeological evidence
A) You're right - there isn't any. Nothing showing Petros was there anyway.
B) Someone said early on that a monument to Peter was erected on Vatican Hill.. At best, you have proof that someone scrawled on a monument and recorded it as one to petros. The monument dates to the right period; but, we have no way of knowing if it was actually erected to Peter. And it's a monument that was claimed, a monument that was found. Not a grave marker.
6. The fact that it wasn't disputed by anyone until 1600-1700 years after the fact.
We don't know that now do we. We only have your word for that as a Catholic. And knowing where that information comes from means you have the burden of proof. I'm not buying it.
Man, I feel like I just carpet bombed something; And all I did was state the obvious. Feels pretty good.
Cool. Thanks a lot.
So now we are relying on scholars? Well the vast majority of respected scholars, Catholic, non-Catholic, and secular, agree that Peter was martyred in Rome. Same goes with the authenticity of the writings of the Church Fathers, they agree with each other which are genuine and which are frauds. So when the scholars tell me that Clement's letter and Irenaeus's Against Heresies are genuine but you say they are frauds, I'll take their word over yours. But I guess you only agree with the scholars when they agree with you which is a corollary of SoothingDave's Law regarding Havoc.
So if we are going to rely on the scholars, which I have absolutely no problem in doing, then my adherence to a Petrine martyrdom in Rome is only strengthened.
B) There is no Unanimous testimony.
Fine. Show me just one Church Father in the first, say 1000 years, who denies that Peter died in Rome. Just one will do. You just don't like what they have to say about the matter, which is obvious to any person capable of rational thought.
So if he'd died in the forest in the middle of China with no one to see, as long as nobody can prove it, you're claim is fact?
China and Britain are irrelevant. You say he stayed in the area around Judaea/the real Babylon. Why hasn't any city in that region EVER claimed that Peter died there while the only claim was made by Rome? Could it be possible, if only remotely(in your eyes), that Rome is where it happened? Like I said before, the early Christians were very observant the where the deaths of Apostles occurred, you could even say they were kind of nutty about it.
If the Bible said something like, "Although Rome had a sizable Jewish population, alas Peter never went there" or "Peter didn't die in Rome", I would agree with your proposition 100%. The fact of the matter is that the Biblical record is, at best(for you) inconclusive. For you to put on airs by saying that you have a slam dunk case when it is anything but strains YOUR credibility(that and your Jesuit conspiracy theory).
Lets see:
The Bible is, at best inconclusiveToo bad for you. But hey, if you want to wallow in your ahistorical ignorance brought on by an acute case of irrational opposition to anything Catholic, be my guest.
The entire witness of the early Church remains against you
The weight of scholarly thought is against you
Pray for John Paul II
LMAOROF and ha ha ha + Lol on that one even though it as most of your jokes have a not so hidden agenda. :-)
You said,It has to come from the heart, if you think that making a deal with God to pick out any prayer he personally likes and then contribute to him, is a heart felt prayer, then don't be surprised if none of yours are being answered. it's absurd.
Why would anyone defend such idiocy as that poem, does the Catholic Church doctrine hinge on it. Can't you read it for what it says?
It's bottom line is, if you can't read an approved prayer to God, 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.
Uh...err...yessss I...ah....Thanks bass, I think.:)
9 Posted on 10/03/2001 23:20:07 PDT by angelo
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | Top | Last ]
"......This from a church which contains such opposites as Richard McBrien and Cardinal Ratzinger, Ted Kennedy and Mother Angelica. You should be a little more forthright in acknowledging doctrinal dissent within your own church."
26 Posted on 10/04/2001 06:39:25 PDT by angelo
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]
"...MY POINT WAS, THERE ARE GREATER DIFFERENCES BETWEEN "ORTHODOX" AND "DISSENTING" CATHOLICS THAN THERE ARE BETWEEN SOME PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS. I'd go further and say that Cardinal Ratzinger has more in common theologically with Billy Graham than he does with Richard McBrien."
Angelo,
What I don't understand about any of the above is why you mention it all. You are knowledgeable enough about Catholicism to know that "theology" thrown around by any good or bad Catholic does not a teaching, dogma or doctrine of the Church make. When you speak of "dissenting" Catholics I think you are referring to "differing theology" thrown out there and bandied about by whoever. Theology is nothing more than words unless and until approved by the Holy Father and the Magesterium. These things don't have to be of any concern to Catholics until then. I mean we can go about our business carefree, knowing that no false teaching will be approved; no new teaching that contradicts what we already know will be plucked out of thin air and added to or subtracted from the deposit of faith.
It also surprises me that you speak of anyone who is baptized Catholic as Catholic when you must know about defacto excommunication. Some things make you automatically excommunicated otherwise you'd still be a Catholic in good standing because you were baptized Catholic. It isn't required that a public edict from on high take place to say someone is excommunicated. This is between you and God though admittedly I would be happy to hear of a public excommunication or two for some. The remedy for excommunication is repentance and sacramental confession.
You say that Kennedy and McBrien attend Mass and receive the sacraments. Well I don't know that for sure or if or where their priests are remiss but I do know that the priests, Kennedy and McBrien will answer to God for their sins of omission/commission and the scandal they cause if they are indeed culpable. That is between God and the people involved. We can only say for sure that their behaviors/ actions are not Catholic.
Angelo, you are very knowledgeable about the finer points of Catholicism but there are a few holes in basic catechesis evidenced above. I cannot hold a candle to the folks on these threads when it comes to scholarship but the basic simple stuff of the Catholic faith is my strong suit and I 'm pretty sure I am correct about the above unless I misunderstand your misunderstanding.
Ha! No, I hadn't heard that one; itsa keeper, thanks.
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.