Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
Perhaps your church was the result of a merger with a Congregationalist church? Or maybe Quakers (Religious Society of Friends?) Some Quakers have moved away from the Society's original Christian background and have become more Unitarian (mostly the really liberal peacenik Quakers).
The Congregationalists (but certainly not the Quakers) might have bequeathed your church a more liturgical service . . .
Counting coup again?
The myth may have fallen, may indeed be a myth, but you wouldn't know it from anything you and Diego have said. You simply do not make your case anything more than a likely story -- as far as I can see, and I've followed it on other threads. It's plausible only if if a whole array of assumptions, some easy, some difficult, are made.
And to me you make your case all the more dubious by seemingly failing to acknowledge the uncertainties or contradictions in your own arguments, by shifting ground, by seeming to resort to circular argument, and by repeatedly claiming that a bunch of coherent conjectures adds up to a proof.
You just said that the beginnings of both letters of Peter indicate that they were written to two different sets of people.
(1)Could "those" be Gentiles. (2)He is addressing them both to different peoples, the first to the Jews of the Disapora and the second to the Gentiles who believe along with the Jews. [I inserted the sentence numbers.]That "those" COULD be Gentiles doesn't show that they ARE Gentiles. Because sentence one is a question (w/o a question mark)in the conditional tense and sentence two is a statement in the indicative mood, it is almost as though they came from two different paragraphs! It's not easy to prove "is" from "could?"
And then if we assume that the letters are addressed the one to gentiles and the other to Jews, you have the problem of dealing with 2 Pet 3:1 which seems to suggest that both were written to the same people. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. It's there. It's a problem created by your hypothesis. If you want your hypothesis to stand, I think you need to deal with it, not just move to some other argument.
It is as if showing that the traditional account is a conjecture with flaws PROVES that it is a myth, so much so that you can crow that it is fallen, while merely offering your account, certainly also a conjecture and certainly also flawed, is enough to prove its truth.
This is what I mean by our having very different understandings of argument and proof. To me, saying that the other side's contention is a fallen myth would be something I would only do either after I had "taken the field" with a comprehensively dispositive argument or as a "This is what I intend to prove" statement. It seems that you do it when you have merely articulated your conjecture. It has a high school debate flavor to my mind unsuited to a serious discussion of serious issues.
We get the over all thesis. We examine the arguments. We point out where they fail to persuade. SO you restate the thesis in a way seemingly intended to offend. Surely you don't think that will persuade us, do you?
Scotch would have to be beforehand, or afterwards (a nice Bordeaux - say Brane-Cantenac or Talbot - would be better with the lamb) but definitely single malt . . . Laphroaig 10 year old or MacAllan 18 sherry cask if living large . . .
We had some '82 Margaux that we drank just in time, last Christmas. It didn't live up to its billing for staying power, it was ready to drink and almost PAST ready.
On the other hand, that Cockburn '55 port that we drank was probably good for another 100 years. . . .
In search of St. Peter's Tomb by Dr. Steven Hijmans
On December 23, 1950, in his pre-Christmas broadcast on radio, Pope Pius XII announced the discovery of St. Peter's tomb far below the high altar of St. Peter's basilica in the Vatican. This was the culmination of 10 years of archaeological research under the crypt of the basilica, carried out by two Jesuit archaeologists and their colleagues. Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, the administrator of St. Peter's, had overall authority over the project and reported about it directly to the Pope himself.
Between 1939 and 1949 this team had uncovered an impressive complex of mausoleums under the foundations of the church, dating to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. From their perspective the most spectacular find was, beyond doubt, the small monument under the present altar of the church which, all evidence suggests, was built as early as AD 160 to mark the tomb of St. Peter below it.
But from a scholarly perspective many other aspects of this complex are equally fascinating. It is striking, for instance, that although the monument above St. Peter's tomb is unequivocally Christian, all the mausolea in the necropolis around it were pagan. Accustomed as we are to associating the Roman Empire before Constantine with the persecution of Christians, it is interesting to note that Christians were apparently able to erect such a monument in an otherwise pagan area at this time.
The numerous mausoleums in the necropolis, often quite intact and well-preserved, are also of obvious interest. One mausoleum, designated mausoleum M, has sparked much debate because of the mosaics with which it is decorated. One figure in particular, depicting the sun-god, is often interpreted as Christ. This would make the mausoleum the single exception to the rule that all mausolea in the necropolis are pagan. However, this mausoleum has been the focus of some of my own research that deals with the Roman sun god, and I question the Christian interpretation given to its mosaics. But it is through this mausoleum that I became interested in this complex as a whole.
Returning to the tomb of St. Peter, its discovery immediately raised the question of the remains of the apostle. Did the excavators find them in the tomb under the monument? This is what Pope Pius XII said in his radio broadcast:
The tomb of the Prince of the Apostles has been found. Such is the final conclusion after all the labour and study of these years. A second question, subordinate to the first, refers to the relics of Saint Peter. Have they been found? At the side of the tomb remains of human bones have been discovered. However, it is impossible to prove with certainty that they belong to the apostle.
Little did he know what a bizarre episode in Christian archaeology lay ahead when he spoke these words. The whole subsequent story has been clearly set out by Dr. J. Curran in the journal Classics Ireland but I will summarize it here. Although the scant remains of bones found in the tomb were initially identified as those of a man in his late sixties, more extensive study later revealed that they actually belonged to an older man, a younger man, a woman, a pig, a chicken, and a horse.
This was disappointing, but meanwhile Margherita Guarducci, an epigraphist studying the graffiti on the monument above the tomb, had discovered that there had actually been a second burial associated directly with the monument. The excavators were unaware of this second burial through no fault of their own. The problem was that these archaeologists, as scholars, had dealt with their finds--including human remains--as archaeological data. Monsignor Kaas, a cleric rather than a scholar, thoroughly disapproved of this and as a result there had been a growing rift between the excavators and their superior. Increasingly, Kaas had taken to visiting the site alone, when the others were gone, guided by workmen sworn to secrecy.
On one such visit, in 1942, he had noticed this second tomb in the monument, newly uncovered but as yet unopened, and had ordered the workman accompanying him to open it. The tomb was not empty, and convinced that this was yet another burial that would soon be desecrated by the Jesuit archaeologists, Kaas had ordered the remains removed and stored for safekeeping. Guarducci discovered these events by pure chance, and by that time Kaas had died. So when Paul VI, a family friend of the Guarduccis, was elected pope, she informed him of her belief that in fact these remains were the true remains of Peter. The bones were found where Kaas had stored them and when testing revealed that they did indeed belong to a man in his sixties, Paul VI officially announced, on June 26th 1968, that the relics of St. Peter had been discovered.
Numerous scholars, including Curran, are by no means convinced that Guarducci was right and that these bones are indeed those of St. Peter. There are in fact numerous cogent arguments against that suggestion. However, none of the alternative hypotheses put forward are convincing either, and this leaves us with two tombs, a monument, and no relics.
Does that matter? It is true that we will probably never know with certainty which of the various bones--if any--belong to St. Peter, but while scholars puzzle over the nature of these remains, is it not enough that under the high altar of St. Peter's we have identified the remains of a monument marking a tomb that has drawn Christian worshippers continuously for over 1850 years? It is in that, one would think, that the true importance of this monument lies.
Dr. Steven Hijmans is a professor of history and classics and also a member of the Religion and Culture Network at the University of Alberta. This article was written in conjunction with a lecture series, "Exploring Our Past: Historical Perspectives on Christianity", that was co-organized by the Faculty of Arts and McDougall United Church. See the ExpressNews What's On - Lectures section for more information about this lecture series, which continues until June 14, 2001.
There is more evidence that Simon Magus was in Rome for 25 years establishing his religious system than there is that Peter was ever in Rome at all.
If you doubt it, go read Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus and you will find that Simon Magus' time in Rome was a well known fact, but Simon Peter's visit there a little known theory being propped up by the apocryphal Acts of Peter and other apocryphal literature.
I am well aware of the entire article. The part you bolded was not bolded in the original article. The author, being a scholar and not a Christian apologist, is showing each argument for the validity of the tomb. I know that the bones in the tomb may not actually be St. Peter's. Nevertheless, they could be. They are from the right time period.
As Dr. Hijmans says in his last paragraph: "is it not enough that under the high altar of St. Peter's we have identified the remains of a monument marking a tomb that has drawn Christian worshippers continuously for over 1850 years? It is in that, one would think, that the true importance of this monument lies."
I am well aware of what the article said, and the part you bolded is not bold in the original. Your bolding of the part you agree with is very disingenuous. You could've just as easily bolded this part, describing the find from the SECOND tomb: "The bones were found where Kaas had stored them and when testing revealed that they did indeed belong to a man in his sixties, Paul VI officially announced, on June 26th 1968, that the relics of St. Peter had been discovered."
Since the author is a scholar and not a Christian apologist, he is obliged to point out all sides of the argument. The bones may not be the bones of St. Peter, but they very well could be. The Basilica is built on the site of Emperor Nero's Circus, where Peter was crucified (head down). The church built there, on the site of his death, has been there from the earliest beginnings of Christianity. Constantine built the Basilica over the little church in the 300s.
As Dr. Hijmans says in his last paragraph: "is it not enough that under the high altar of St. Peter's we have identified the remains of a monument marking a tomb that has drawn Christian worshippers continuously for over 1850 years? It is in that, one would think, that the true importance of this monument lies."
It is referencing a train of though several hundred posts ago...
Peter was Jewish and the Jews had their own cemeteries.But Simon Magus was probably buried up there ----
(I have about 10 bottles of '59 Margaux that my dad didn't drink in time. THe corks are good. The wine is too old though... insipid, how sad!
Beyond sad, it is tragic.
Well, Peter was crucified upside down and apparently missing his feet (a likely way of taking him down off the cross), an enemy of the state, and a nuisance in the chaos that was Nero's Rome.
Everyone, except for the Jews, and a few handsful of Christians was pagan. And the Jews were being expelled, and the Christians were being killed. How many Jewish (or Christian for that matter) places of burial do you think were lying around (so to speak)?
Besides, think of the magnificent metaphor. Peter, buried in the midst of the pagans he was sent to convert; St. Peter's, rising over their dead remains. Kind of a nice parallel to Jesus humbly born in the manger versus the splendour of Christ on His Throne in Revelation.
I am always tempted to ask those who boast "we have xxx conversions" this year" how many they lost to other religions, no religion, and/or atheism.
Unitarian from Congregational.
Coincidentally, the first Protestant Church I ever attended was a Congregational Church.
Stepping in here to help clarify....can't stay long as my grandson's baseball game starts soon. He's actually pretty good for nine years old and makes me proud. He has a 51 mile an hour fast ball....clocked! His dad, my son, was pretty good too, so he has an excellent pitching coach.
Many folks never heard of the distinction between Israel and Judah. Ping-Pong has alluded to it several times and I have also, so I thought I would take the time to expostulate.
In Genesis we read of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and of God's relationship to them. Abraham has other children and so does Isaac, but the scriptures primarily deal with Jacob and his progeny from the time his name is changed to Israel [Genesis 35:10]. The twelve sons and one daughter of Jacob are henceforth called the Children of Israel.....and the rest of the Old Testament is their story.
Everyone knows of the enslavement in Egypt and [Genesis 48] explains the division of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manessah). During the Egyptian captivity there are thirteen tribes of Israel but after the Exodus the tribe of Moses (and Aaron), the Levites, becomes a priestly tribe and is apportioned by population to serve the other tribes.... bringing the tribe count back down to twelve.
After the Exodus and the resettlement in "The Promised Land" the Kingdom of Israel is divided and this can be read about in the books of Kings and Chronicles...primarily chapters eleven and twelve of I Kings. Ten tribes, in the north, retain the appellation "Israel". The two tribes in the south are Judah and Benjamin....with their apportioned share of the priestly tribe of Levi. They are henceforth referred to as Judah...jointly, and later on in biblical history simply become known as "Jews".
There are multiple prophesies to the Nations of Israel and Judah....both jointly and separately....so when you are reading prophecy it helps to make this distinction. Later on in history, God in his anger sends away to exile the Northern Kingdom...(ten tribes) about 721 B.C. to Assyria [II Kings 17:6] and they never return from captivity. The king of Assyria repopulates the now vacant land with pagans [II Kings 17:24] and these folks blend in with their paganism some features of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [II Kings 17:33-34] ....exemplified by their now new neighbors....the Jews, or the Southern Kingdom.
The ten tribes are now lost to history....everyone knows where they are, but they become known as strangers, sojourners, captives, and in reading ancient history of that era and local you will see many cultures developing in the same location at the same time as the ten tribes were in residence. So, bottom line....they became known by other names. Josephus knew who they were and where they were in the first century. Jesus knew who they were and where they were when he instructed his Apostles to "Go to them".
The Southern Kingdom of Judah (Jews) lived on in that area until they too, were taken captive.... to Babylon about 600 B.C. [II Kings 25:1-7] But, they returned to the "Promised Land" seventy years later and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah chronicle that episode. That land....of Judah (the Jews) became known as Judea in the first century. The land north was referred to as Samaria and still populated by paganized descendants of Babylonian refugees....the ancestors of Simon Magus. [Acts 8]
During the first century, the time we read most about in the New Testament, the ten tribes of Israel have still not returned to "The Promised Land" and they are known as Israelites.....and never referred to as Jews! The country of Judea is populated by Jews...who are also Israelites....one tribe. These ten tribes are who Our Saviour refers to when He speaks of the "Lost Sheep". [Matthew 10:6 and Matthew 15:24] He also references them in [John 21:15-17]. He is not speaking here of the Jews of Judea. He was one...so were most of the Apostles. He is not speaking of the Gentiles or He would have not called them His Lost Sheep!
This is only a scratching of the surface with regard to this story and like I say....I've got to go root for my grandson, so I would just like to leave you all with a suggestion. When you read prophecy look to see at whom it is directed. If it is directed to Israel in the last days....don't put too much credence in that being the little country we all call Israel today....for they are "Judah! This is one reason why many folks cannot understand simple prophecy. They are attempting to place it on the wrong people, at the wrong time, in the wrong place!
and you know that how???
How many Jewish (or Christian for that matter) places of burial do you think were lying around (so to speak)?
Quite a few since there had been a significant Jewish presence there ---
Besides, think of the magnificent metaphor. Peter, buried in the midst of the pagans he was sent to convert; St. Peter's, rising over their dead remains.
or the Basilica rising above the corpse of Simon Magus, buried beneath it in the midst of his pagan followers on a hill [Vatican] named for the soothsayers, fortune tellers, seers, and pagan prophets who peddled their wares there. It gives new meaning to a church built upon such a foundation.
And I HAVE read the Justin Martyr bit, a LOT in recent days. Have YOU mentioned how many people think that the statue he thinks is Simon is in fact a statue of a Sabine Diety?
What is up with this? Are we about the truth here or about selling a point of view by carelessly misrepresenting evidence? I am really astonished!
I wish you would understand it form my point of view. If I give a moment's credence to something you assert, somebody else comes up and shows me that I shouldn't have. YOU mention the menagerie of bones, and I don't challenge it but joke with you about it, thinking that the discovery of the body that I know about must have happened another time. Now I am embarrassed that I believed you! This is terrible scholarship, and I am just an ADHD wanna be!
Diego asserts that Strong says that tribe is the "preferred" meaning of ethnos. I go to HIS source and find that's not what it says at all! How can I ever trust you again?
I feel abused! maybe this is abusive of me, but I don't intend it to be. I just don't get how the obvious misrepresentation of a source, whether intentional or not is not a kind of betrayal.
I'm sorry if I'm out of line here. I have eagerly mocked myself (easy target, after all) and reached out to controversialists to try to help this be a decent and friendly thread. Now I think I was wasting my time.
Please tell me this was at least inadvertent.
I noticed it was over the top.
I just couldn't remember if you were posting around the time when there was a claim of no one ever converting to RC.
I was merely providing context.
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.