| St. Peter and Rome |
 |
| 11/15/04 |
Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
| St. Peter and Rome |
|
| 11/15/04 |
Because he uses the same rhetoric, deception, untruths, venom and vitriol against the Catholic Church as one would find in the Jack Chick tracts. Those tracts are noted for their hate-mongering and according to the Religion Moderator are not allowed to be linked on this forum.
That is how.
Such as that is only a counterfeit of true Christianity.
The name for the area around Jerusalem during the first century was Judea. Previously it had been called "Judah". There were two kingdoms of Israelites after King David [I Kings 12:19-20]. The northern Kingdom called Israel and the southern Kingdom called Judah. These two kingdoms were frequently at war against each other and the first place in your Bible where the word Jew is mentioned is in II Kings 16:1-6. The Jews are at war against Israel.
Israel was taken captive [II Kings 17:6](721 B.C.) and only Judah [II Kings 17:18] remained....the Jews. You can also see this distinction between the two kingdoms in II Chronicles 11:1. The Jews later on (120 years) were taken captive themselves to Babylon....but they came back. The northern Kingdom never returned from their captivity. You can read about it in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. You will notice that only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and their share of the priestly tribe of Levi are mentioned.
So, to answer your question now that you have the background....Yes, you may say that the word Judean is interchangeable with the word Israelite. Bottom line....all Jews (Judeans) are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews. Much the same as all Californians are Americans but not all Americans are Californians.
Apology---#654 should have been pinged to Uncle Chip, not Iscool
I guess I have never heard him speak against your Church. I do know that Jack Chick isn't allowed here, but I had no idea who he was until I read his name mentioned here so often lately. I am sorry that there are those who feel they must tear down other believers.
Dear lady
I'm glad you are sorry. It's a good sign. :-)
I'll go to bed on that one.
ROE
I understand that the first time the word Jew was used was when Bible was translated and printed in English. I think both the Douay-Rheims and the St. James bibles were translated into English at about the same time. Evidently there was great difficulty with the word Judeans since there was no J in Greek or Hebrew and so to simplify matters they came up with the word Jew rather than the clumsy to pronounce, Iudiceans.(Or something close)Do you have any information on that?
Bump to get off the number 666
That is, we "know" that if we ignore later verses and the witnesses we don't like. Otherwise we "know" no such thing.
There is NO suggestion whatsoever, "not even of any kind" in the text. It is an assumption, that the the instruction in the text you cite over and over again, as though repetition were a kind of proof, and discussion a matter more of endurance than of reason, has to do with the general ministry of the 12. And there are texts -- I quoted one -- which can be reasonably understood as instructions, after the resurrection, to go into all the world.
The Catholic Encyclopedia records this about the Marcionites, the followers of Marcion, a disciple of Simon Magus:
"Marcionites: Heretical sect founded 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East several centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament, and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of a good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. They anticipated the more consistent dualism of Manicheism and were finally absorbed into it. As they arose in the very infancy of Christianity, and adopted from the beginning a strong ecclesiastical organization parallel to that of the Catholic Church, they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known . . . . Marcion was no Gnostic dreamer. He wanted a Christianity untrammelled and undefiled by association with Judaism. Christianity was the New Covenant pure and simple . . . the Old Testament was a scandal to the faithful and a stumbling block to the refined and intellectual gentiles by its crudity and cruelty, and the Old Testament had to be set aside. . . . Lastly the report that Marcion on his arrival at Rome had to have or to renew a confession of faith fits in naturally with the supposition of his being a bishop. . . ."
The Encyclopedia then goes on to try claim that he was not a bishop in Rome. Ignatius called Marcion as the "Son of Satan". If Simon Magus was the Father of all Heresies, then Marcion was his Son, and the Father of Replacement Theology.
The Marcionites became the Manicheans and out of the Manicheans would come that most famous pillar of the Roman Catholic Church, Aurelius Augustine, who became Bishop of Hippo only a few short years after his supposed conversion from Manicheism. Then he penned his famous treatise, setting aside the prophecies regarding the future of Jerusalem which lay in ruins at that time, and allegorizing Rome now to be God's new Eternal City on earth. Marcion would have been proud of him. Augustine is revered by Catholics and Reformers alike, and a theological pillar for the Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, and others who mouth his teachings without knowing where they came from.
But let's return to Irenaeus in Against Heresies: Book I; Chapter 27: Verses 1-4, and find out more about Marcion:
1]"Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards. He taught that the God proclaimed by the law and the prophets was not Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, For the former was known, but the latter unknown; while the one also was righteous, but the other benevolent."
[At first it sounded like Irenaeus was claiming that Cerdo was the 9th in succession, but on more careful reading, he says in the time of Hyginus, Cerdo starts developing the doctrine of Simon Magus. My apology to Irenaeus for the misreading]
2]"Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judea . . . was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judea, abolishing the prophets and the law and all the works of that God who made the world, whom he calls Cosmocrator. Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this Universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are all those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostles respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.
3]"Salvation will be the attainment only of those souls which had learned his doctrine; while the body, as having been taken from the earth, is incapable of sharing in salvation. In addition to his blasphemy against God Himself, he advanced this also, truly speaking as with the mouth of the devil, and saying all things in direct opposition to truth --- that Cain, and all those like him, and the Sodomites, and the Egyptians, and others like them, and in fine all nations who walked in all sorts of abominations, were saved by the Lord on his descending into Hades, and on their running into Him, and that they welcomed Him into their kingdom. But the serpent which was in Marcion declared that Abel, Enoch, and Noah, and those other righteous men who sprang from the patriarch Abraham, with all the prophets, and those who were pleasing to God, did not partake in salvation. For since these men, he says knew that their God was constantly tempting them, so now they suspected that He was tempting them, and did not run to Jesus, or believe his announcement; and for this reason he declared that their souls remained in Hades.
4]"But since this man is the only one who has dared openly to mutilate the Scriptures, and unblushingly above all others to inveigh against God, I purpose specially to refute him, convicting him out of his own writings; and with the help of God, I will overthrow him out of those discourses of the Lord and the apostles, which are of authority with him, and of which he makes use. At present, however, I have simply been led to mention him, that thou mayest know that all those who in any way corrupt the truth, and injuriously affect the preaching of the Church, are the disciples and successors of Simon Magus of Samaria. Although they do not confess the name of their master, in order all the more to seduce others, yet they do teach his doctrine. They set forth, indeed, the name of Christ Jesus as a sort of lure, but in various ways they introduce the impieties of Simon; and they destroy multitudes, wickedly disseminating their doctrines by the use of a good name, and through means of its sweetness and beauty, extending to their hearers the bitter and malignant poison of the serpent, the great author of apostasy".
Is Replacement Theology the Great Apostasy? Its pontificators have to resort to allegorization to try to give any credence to it. These pontificators allegorize "Israel" to mean the "Church", just as the RCC magisterium allegorizes "Babylon" to mean "Rome" in Peter's letter.
Irenaeus says that those who "allegorize" the Scriptures are disciples of Simon Magus. And what other Theologies, Roman Catholic and/or Protestant, have been foisted upon the people by way of the "allegorization" of the Scriptures?
Do as you will ---
This is NOT what Replacement Theology (poorly named) is all about.
Unlike the Marcions, I'm proud of my Jewish heritage with Father Abraham and in my mind the only way to fully understand how God deals with people is through the Old Testament. I find today many who reduce the Old Testament down to moral stories or fables. A God who is jealous and chooses a nation doesn't fit with a God who loves all mankind. In some regards they are much like the Marcions.
That quote above is merely a snippet of what the disciples of Simon Magus and Marcion taught. Many were more careful and subtle about their replacement theology and others, like Marcion, bolder letting it all hang out. Can you state for certain that the doctrine that we know as replacement theology, which allegorizes away the words of the prophets of the Old Testament, did not come down to us through Marcion?
I will, of course.
You haven't made your case, and you persist in saying that Catholics are taught stuff that they aren't in fact taught. This latter trashes your credibility. Why should I believe the conjectures of someone who insists on the truth of what I know not to be true? How can I respect the judgment of someone who, when his "facts" are denied, shows no doubt but moves on to a new equally untrue "fact"?
Your evidence is weak, you do not respond to evidence offered for the other side, your argument depends more on repetition than on reason, and you ignore those texts which suggest your thesis is mistaken.
Look: If there's a 50% chance that 'A' is true and a 50% chance that 'B' is true, there's only a 25% chance that they are both true at once. And if 'A' is known to be true, but 'B' is a conjecture, then the likelihood of both being true at once is only as great as the likelihood of the conjecture. A cloth made partially of canvas and partially of gauze is only as strong as the gauze. A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.
But in your arguments "It is possible" in one paragraph becomes one element in something "shown conclusively" a little later. You blend the uncontroversial with the conjectured and then claim for the finished article the strength of the uncontroversial when it cannot be stronger than the conjecture.
So we have allegations known to be untrue, and implausible conjectures presented as certainties -- and presented by someone known to have presented falsehood as truth. I'm not trying to be harsh or to put you down. I'm looking at the argument. It looks like a weak case to me, sho' 'nuff.
"It's our humility that makes us great"
--- Click and Clack
And so you love and trust his words over God's words? Do his words carry the promise of eternal life?
I love and I trust God,s words.
So let's see. The words of Scripture mean nothing to you, nor the words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, nor those of honest Catholic scholars, nor those of the Catholic Encyclopedia on this matter. Perhaps the words of someone else would be more appropriate for you, like Huckleberry Hound.
Please read carefully, then answer:
How were people saved before the Bible?You might also want to share your thinking about the salvation of the learning disabled and the illiterate
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.