Posted on 08/21/2007 5:01:42 PM PDT by NYer
Oh yes, studying.
Look at how the Jews study Scripture. In the temple with a reader. I would take this as instructing Christians to act more like the Jews in their study of the OT (and then as the NT was put together in the 4th century, the NT as well).
I believe in my last post I clarified I was speaking of the OT. I realize they did not have the NT.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mnd, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those thngs were so.
What scripture were they studying? Was it just the Jewish “leaders” that were allowed to study them?
Why would Paul say to study the scripture’s to show thy self approved unto God if people did not have access to them?
Becky
Yes, the Scripture they were studying. But of course in “study groups”, such as Paul found when he crossed to Europe and met Lydia in Phillipi “praying” with the women on the river banks.
In Deuteronomy 6:8-9, speaking of teaching children, God commanded:
Thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt “write” them upon the posts of thy house on on they gates.
Other people were writing scriptures down then just scribes. They many not have had the whole but if the people were command to write them on their gates, they could write, which means they could read. Families were writing scripture down to study. It was commanded. IMO, this is telling us families had scripture wrote down to study.
Becky
And they knew a lot of things but little to nothing about Peter's alleged sojourn in Rome. And after nearly 2000 years even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "...we possess no precise information regarding details of his [Peter's] Roman sojourn."
So Uncle Chip judges Irenaeus incorrect. Nice. Somehow Uncle Chip knows more about the founding of the Roman See than a guy who knew some of the very people who were there when it happened.
Irenaeus knew nobody who was there when it supposedly happened or he would have named and quoted him. Even Catholic scholars like F. A. Sullivan readily now admit this:
"Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as 'greatest, most ancient and known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.' Here we must acknowledge a bit of rhetoric, as the church of Rome was obviously not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul." [Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 35,147]).
We discussed this on a previous thread. The article says we possess no details of Peter's sojourn. But the fact that he was there was widely known, which is what is at issue here.
Anyway, it's not correct that *no* details were preserved. We have plenty of details of Peter in Rome. The problem is that they are in apparently spurious records whose historical worth is very uncertain at this point.
Take the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. They may well be spurious, but they are early nonetheless, and one cannot assume that just because they are spurious that they do not contain references to events that really happened. If anything, a forger would try to keep the general outline of the story as it was known just to have it more easily pass as genuine. Say I was pretending to forge a work by Churchill...I would do my best to include real events from his life, and in the process, include lots of true historical details about WWII, Yalta, etc.
So that's where the writer (I think) gets his "no *precise* details"...we're not sure what is genuine and what isn't. The tradition of Peter debating Simon Magus at Rome is pretty consistent, and is met with time and time again throughout multiple sources....so I'm not prepared to say it is wholly fabulous. The audience before Nero is more suspicious, but that's another thing that was reported. Likewise Peter's ordination of Linus, Cletus, and Clement. And of course, Peter's martyrdom itself, which is the strongest tradition out of all of them.
Irenaeus knew nobody who was there when it supposedly happened or he would have named and quoted him. Even Catholic scholars like F. A. Sullivan readily now admit this:
Irenaeus had known Polycarp at Smyrna, and Polycarp was a disciple of St. John. Furthermore, Irenaeus' letter to Pope Victor shows a pretty intimate familiarity with the history and liturgical practice of the Roman See:
Among these (Victor's predecessors) were the presbyters before Soter. They neither observed it (14th Nisan) themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet, though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed. ... And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp ... nor Polycarp Anicetus ... . But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace"As for F. A. Sullivan, what can I say. Lots of Catholics out there that seem to have imbibed much of the hypercriticism of the German school: in which nothing ever is what it says. He's one scholar.
Ergo, it would be foolish to take the lack of voluminous documentation of Peter's activities in Rome as serious proof of his non-presence. Unless that is the case you desperately want to prove.
Try to step outside that box you've constructed for yourself. Leave all that post-Reformation, anti-Catholic baggage behind and check it out. See if you can time travel to a place where there was no Luther, no polemics against Rome, no catchphrases like sola scriptura. Just new and emerging communities. Proving who was where and when seems a little beside the point, doesn't it?
Very well stated!
Might I ask if anyone has links they could share to the provinances of the titulus from the cross and/or the Turin Shroud?
There’s some links in the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titulus_Crucis
Including a link to a C-14 study that determined the wood was probably only about 1000 years old.
What strikes me about “Acts” is how fragmentary it is. Peter, who has played a major role just disappears from the scene after he is delivered from prision. He simply “goes elsewhere.” From Galatians, we may gather that he immiately went to Antioch. But Luke makes no futher mention of his actions. Although Sunday School lessons give us the impression that we know a lot about Paul’s “journeys,” Luke gives us only a sketchy account of many years of activity. More is devoted to his account of what happened to Paul after he returns to Jerusalem for the last time and how he ended up in Rome. There Luke simply drops his pen. It has been speculated that Luke intended to pick up the story with Peter again, or to recount Paul’s travels to the West. We don’t know.
Similar results on the Shroud. The real mystery is how anyone could have created the image, or why its negative image is so refined,
Actually the Shroud dating was problematic. They may have pulled the fiber from an area that was rewoven, throwing off the result. So the jury’s still out on that!
www.shroud.com
is the place to go for all that stuff. More than you’ll ever want to know probably!
I was admittedly disappointed to see that C14 result on the titulus...I’m no epigrapher by any means but the letter forms looked suitably ancient when I saw it in person. There is some speculation it is a copy of an original...who knows!
If you’re in Italy and have a chance to go to the Church that it’s in (santa croce), by all means do so though. It also has reputed nails and a big piece of the cross. I was a perfect agnostic when I went, and I knew these things could well be fakes but to see that stuff in the flesh...man...they sent shivers down my spine all the same.
thanx
Yep, that was a concern that was raised, whether the fire elevated the level of C14. There was also some talk about a “bioplastic coating” that was over some of the strands.
But those theories have kinda been put to rest and (this is from memory so I may have it wrong) the main focus right now is on whether the piece that was taken was from an invisible reweave. I think even the C14 study people admitted that there might be a problem in that regard.
The C14 test was an anomaly...the rest of the Shroud doesn’t jive with it. Textile experts, art experts, the sticky tape pollen samples, the real blood on the thing.
If it is a forgey, it’s the cleverest ever done.
Rome’s Pre-eminence has never been questioned. That the Patriarch of Rome had any authority outside of his jurisdiction is what Orthodoxy disputes. He NEVER had any authority outside of his own territory, unless it was to settle a dispute, which was done on more than one occasion, historically. The only entity with the power tomake decisions regarding doctrine and dogma are the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. If Clement was genuine, or needed, then WHY was his First Epistle not added to the canon of scripture?
He deserves to be treated the way he does, mainly due to his un-Orthodox ways. Patriarchs CAN be deposed. And he has zero authority, other than over the Greek Church.
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.