Posted on 02/08/2006 1:14:31 PM PST by jecIIny
Has NOTHING to do with what you wrote on your "Papal Contradictions". What does dueling have anything to do with the Deposit of Faith handed down from the Apostles? Infallibility only protects the Church on such solemnly defined issues, not on political issues or private opinions, or the color of vestments...
Regards
Can you show me that in the Catechism? I must have read over that one...
Regards
Not exactly a very good argument, Harley. The orthodox Church did not teach heresies. Just because a heretic came to Rome doesn't mean that the whole Roman community and the Pope fell in lock step with the heretic. And finally, were not all of those heresies refuted by Rome and the Councils?
Regards
The article states that *Babylonia* was a center for Jewish culture after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. That may, to an extent, be true. But "Babylonia" is not the same as "Babylon," to begin with, and, if the case is to be made that it is *supposed* to be Babylon, there is more to consider. The scholarship of the article is more than a little suspect and, in any case, we're dealing with Wikipedia here. Wikipedia may be better than nothing to research a lot of topics, but the fact remains that it is NOT authoritative, as it can be edited by any contributor. Things can and do get edited out of spite, ignorance or sloppiness on Wikipedia all the time.
You ever consider that Rome had the LARGEST Diaspora in the world during the first century? That Rome was the CAPITAL of the known world? Why WOULDN'T Peter go there? And that is exactly what history says that he did. "Babylon" is a synonym of corruption and God-lessness of the OT Babylon. Peter and the Christian community are in the middle of this "Babylon".
Regards
If you don't believe Jews telling you about Jewish history
you need to reflect on that thought.
b'shem Y'shua
"There is no evidence that Rome was called Babylon by the Christians until the Book of Revelation was published, about 90-96 AD," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Well, then, there IS historical evidence, that you concur with yourself, that Christians had an early understanding, based on Scripture, precisely along the lines of my point! So what's your problem with it?
Most of the rest of your post conflates Babylon with Babylonia, not by any means the same thing. And your post also talks about things happening in the Old Testament, during times when Babylon DID exist (though most of your events you cite aren't placed in Babylon), so, again, what's your point?
You also seem to be engaging in quite a bit of Biblical speculation, for which there is not a *shred* of biblical evidence. The Magi were from *Babylon*? Scriptural citation for that one, please...
"Lets see, the bread is literal flesh because the Church says the bible says it was His body, but Babylon is not Babylon even though the bible says he did, because the church says it is not?"
Well, no, not so much because the Church says so, but because the plain facts of *history* say so. Since the city of Babylon had ceased to exist as a city before the New Testament was written, and we know that the early Christians often referred to Rome as Babylon even apart from St. Peter's use of the term, it is clear that the name "Babylon," as used in the New Testament, is allegorical. Some things ARE allegorical in Sfripture, you know. Do you honestly suppose, for example, that the Beast of Revelation 13 is going to *literally* appear with ten horns and seven heads, or do you suppose that they symbolize something?
"if the truth be told and the catholic church had its way no one would be permitted to think, speak or write against it in any way"
__________________________________________
The printing press changed everything. It's obvious that once people were able to read scripture for themselves that they quickly realized how far off track the Roman Church had fallen.
It's interesting that the churches experiencing the greatest growth are evangelical in approach and place a emphasis on Bible study and the RC churches have largely become museum's.
He is someone that has not yet been saved by faith.
Lets see what their first Pope says
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:24 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Pray for this author that God open his eyes and ears to hear and believe .
On the other hand Josephus, Antiquities, Book xv, Ch 2, 2 says . "The ancient city of Mesopotamia, an area which was then a center of pure and uncompromising Judiasim" p. 65, 1 Peter by A. M. Stibbs. ACT 2:9 tells us they were in the Pentecost crowd. "After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 Babylonia became, and for centuries remained, a seat of Jewish Schools devoted to the study and interpretation of the law" Dictionary of the Bible, p. 72, by J. J. Davis
Sources...?
I googled your keywords (Paschal II, Eugenius III, duelling), and fully half of the sites get the following message from my filter: "Access Denied: Extreme Content."
Not a glowing endorsement of your assertions so far!
The pope is only infallible when officially defining Catholic dogma. No one said he is impeccable or always right.
if the truth be told and the catholic church had its way no one would be permitted to think, speak or write against it in any way
If you say so...
People were reading the Bible for over one thousand years before the printing press. What on earth are you talking about?
It's interesting that the churches experiencing the greatest growth are evangelical in approach and place a emphasis on Bible study and the RC churches have largely become museum's.
Again, what on earth are you talking about? We have people standing in the back of our church on Sundays, it is so full. Maybe you should actually get out and go to Mass and see for yourself if the Catholic Churches are "museums" before you pronounce us dead!
Regards
This "word" is not the bible alone, but the preachings and teachings of the Apostles, which includes both oral and written teachings. Nowhere do I find that the Bible calls itself the only means of how God "speaks" to us. Another Protestant tradition.
Regards
There's no evidence in the Bible that the Great Wall of China existed either. Nor does the Bible EVER mention the planet Jupiter...Big deal. The bible never makes the claim that it contains all human knowledge! There is not one contemporary piece of evidence and not one eyewitness.
How many eyewitnesses do you know that witnesses the Civil War? I guess it must not have happened... Until you can disprove that the writers are inaccurate, the basic premise on historical documents is that the historian is relating truth. This concept goes back even to the Greeks.
After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 Babylonia became, and for centuries remained, a seat of Jewish Schools devoted to the study and interpretation of the law
Ma'am, St. Peter was killed, along with Paul, in Rome by Nero in the mid-60's. That would be BEFORE the fall of Jerusalem and 70 AD...
Regards
Mesopotamia is not a "city." I think that Josephus knew that...so I believe your quote is garbled at best or from a shaky source.
As for evidence from next generation sources: what's wrong with that? If "Babylon" was universal code among Christians for "Rome" by an extremely early date (and your own source, cited previously, admits this much), why should you, removed by 19.5 centuries from the time the Scriptural passages at issuw were written, have any more credibility? The problem with such thinking is that it gives NO weight to the concept of Divvine Providence protecting the Church, if, as you imply, erroneous and fabulous tales are already circulating among the followers of Christ at such an early date.
There is a lot of evidence that St. Peter was in Rome, inferrentially in the NT, and specifically in a number of 2nd to 4th Century Christian writings. If you take issue with their witness, why even bother being a Christian? If they "lied" about such things, or their collective memory was that shaky, how do we know their word about the canon of Scripture, for example, wasn't equally muddled or fabricated? You have no real answer without embracing the veracity of the early Church!
Indeed, VERY little of the life of Christ Himself is independently verifiable outside of the New Testament. Objectively, how do we know it isn't all a lie? Don't say "Because the Bible says so." The Bible is not self-authenticating, certainly not in that way. The text has much cross-referencing of prophecy and fulfillment, from OT to NT, but that's not the same thing as self-authentication. We believe primarily because of faith fed by grace. The words were transmitted by each and every Christian generation, including the second and third generations you seem to have trouble with concerning truth-telling.
Using Scripture as the *only* guide in historical matters where there is no concrete statement contained in it about them is sheer folly. It is a natural outgrowth of the extreme-wing of Sola Scriptura. Babylon was NOT a center of anything in the 1st Century! Christians at the time already knew that. They used "Babylon" as emblematic of a corrupt, decadent power. It took no genius at the time to ascertain that "Rome" was meant. And your own evidence suggests that, contemporaneous with the promulgation of the Book of Revelation, "Babylon" WAS understood by Christians as "Rome." Therefore, the allegorical understanding of the word "Babylon" is quite clear.
Hmmmm. You are suggesting I have mis-stated the facts?
No. Only what I have been told by Catholic friends.
That is true. There is only some tradition to that effect.
On the other hand Josephus, Antiquities, Book xv, Ch 2, 2 says . "The ancient city of Mesopotamia, an area which was then a center of pure and uncompromising Judiasim" p. 65, 1 Peter by A. M. Stibbs. ACT 2:9 tells us they were in the Pentecost crowd. "After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 Babylonia became, and for centuries remained, a seat of Jewish Schools devoted to the study and interpretation of the law" Dictionary of the Bible, p. 72, by J. J. Davis
If we are to believe tradition, Peter was dead before the fall of Jerusalem. How far he traveled from Jerusalem during the time he served as "apostle to the circumcision" in unknown.
There is not one contemporary piece of evidence and not one eyewitness.
And the same is certainly true of Peter with respect to Babylon in Mesopotamia. Nothing to place him there, except a "literal" reading of his letter.
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.