Posted on 10/11/2001 9:39:48 AM 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 | Thread 157 |
| Thread 158<;/a> | Thread 159 | Thread 160 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 161
I'm just curious. A simple, one word answer is all that is needed. What do you say, yea or nay?
Pray for JP II
SoothingDave wrote: You have simply started with a fallacy. We use our judgment to determine what is literal and what is figurative. You are saying that we are not allowed to discern, we must accept everything as literal or everything as figurative. I suppose this includes the stories about the Resurrection as well.
First of all, you are right---the way in which I worded it DID make the statement fallacious. Let me try it again: If one takes this statement ("This is My body") literally, other OBVIOUS metaphors could also be taken literally, such as "I am the Vine; you are the branches." (Well, I'm not sure how much better that is, but I hope you understand my gist.)
Second, I thought y'all couldn't use common discernment when reading the scriptures.
You also wrote: ...in order to puzzle out what he meant when he used metaphors like "I and the Father are one" and "He who has seen me has seen the Father"
Why do you call these metaphors? I see these as statements of fact.
Thank you soooo much for straightening Mr. Havard out on this little isssew. 8 )
Not always, dignan. For instance, does "O taste and see that the Lord is good!" mean that we are persecuting or killing the Lord? (or perhaps you employ this verse as a eucharistic blessing?) There are some other instances in the Word which don't agree with your rule, but I can't think of even one at the moment. (I took an Ambien a while ago) Help me out, Protties!
You also wrote: I also reject a metaphorical understanding of John 6 because of the way the listeners of Jesus reacted to His statements...they abondoned Jesus over a gross misunderstanding with possible eternal consequences. My Lord is not that reckless.
Yes, some of His listeners were offended by Jesus' suggesting that they eat him and drink His blood. But Jesus did correct their thinking when He proclaimed that there is nothing profitable in flesh; rather it is THE SPIRIT who gives life---and the words He had been speaking were of a spiritual nature which would bring life to the hearers...if they believe. They didn't abandon Jesus because they misunderstood; it clearly says that they left because they did not BELIEVE.
You also wrote: Also, the Greek word used for "eat" is trogo which literally means "to gnaw". Pretty graphic, and dare I say literal, description, if you ask me.
This doesn't prove anything. Aren't there several Greek words for "eat"? They are all basically the same, Just because "gnaw" is graphic, doesn't mean He was speaking literally. In the figurative sense, "gnaw" is just as graphic!
You also wrote: due to the fact that the historical understanding and teaching of Christianity is that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of Christ, I reject a symbolic or metaphorical Eucharist.
OK---please show me the historical record which indicates that the first century Christians really believed in this hocuspocus. Draw the record from the book of Acts or the epistles...or even from Clement or some other early church father's writings in that century.
I have suggested multiple evidences that should be present by way of questions asked in the last number of threads - Tax records, census, location of a home, a synagogue, a bill of sale, etc. These are all things that would exist and do not. A court record of his trial and death would also be helpful, decrees were not simply word of mouth, they were recorded.. And let's face it, Rome proper was not overrun. We have civil records of individual will's from the time, where are any written records from Rome proper showing Peter abiding by local law? Where is Any hard physical evidence of his presence.
Frankly the Bible does suggest it in several ways and the testimony of early Church fathers is evidence.
The testimony of the "early church fathers" is the hearsay of a bunch of men repeating each other's inconclusive hearsay. None of them can say of any authority that he was there. I've addressed their lack of credibility on a number of bases. We've no idea who wrote the books Their works are not inspired, not scripture and therefore must be judged in light of history - not Christianity. What Historic documents exist to establish the veracity of anything they say.
The only situation where it would not be considered conclusive is if there was evidence he died some place else. Since there is no other testimony or hard evidence that he died some place else we have by default only Rome as a plausible grave.
This is your opinion - not the laws of science or of reality. Just because you want to believe it does not change the way the real world views science and archeological proof. Saying something does not make it true in absence of evidence to the contrary, and there is evidence to the contrary in the scriptures.
Why should we not take the testimony of St. Irenaus(180 AD) who said "The blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, having founded and built up the Church handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus...." Against Heresies 3,3,3
Who are we quoting here, Irenaus or someone else who lived at the end of the second century and wrote something 120 years (6 generations) after Peter's death. And what is it he did Not say here. Well, he didn't say that Peter was in Rome. If we believe the author's statement, it doesn't either first or second hand, put Peter in Rome or require that he be in Rome. Peter spoke at pentecost to people who were from Rome. Others in Rome had heard the Gospel before Paul showed up. And Peter is never mentioned as being in Rome - persecutions or no - never placed there either by Peter's testimony or anyone elses from his time.
This was the belief of all Christendom for a long time, we don't need to prove it, you need to prove that he wasn't there.
Uh, no. All Christendom has not always believed this, All Catholicism maybe; but, not all Christendom. And, lest we forget, all Europe believed for a long time that the Donation of Constantine was legit - oops. 1100 years of telling a lie does not baptise it as truth. 1500 years of repeating hearsay doesn't make it true either. And the burden of proof is squarely on the Catholic Church as the author of the claim. I'm not dumb enough to buy this, "we say it's true, you have to prove us wrong or it's true" crap. Prove your case.
.. but frankly no we don't. The evidence you want seems to be some thing other then writings of early Christians,
Well, the people you cite cannot get certain beliefs right, were they really christians - or just good at the lingo? Their books are uninspired and considered dubious for numerous reasons - which is why noncatholics disregard them and question their authority. If they had any authority, that should be easy to establish, why has Catholicism been unable to do so? Is it, perhaps, because the number of claimed writings that are found fraudulent through the march of time and technology seems to bump them off every so often? Is it because the greatest support for the claims the Catholic church has made re: Peter in Rome happened to be forged? Is it because there is no first hand evidence of someone - anyone contemporary of Peter writing not just that he was in Rome but what he was doing there. Is there no civil record of his presence. The name Appolos appears in Roman Records by way of trial account if memory serves - why no Peter?
I wonder what other evidence would survive? I suppose inscriptions in the Christian catacombs of Rome "Paul and Peter pray for Victor" Wouldn't be good enough either?
You can't be serious. I could paint you anything you want on a catecombe wall and let people view it in 10 centuries. If it's Bilbo Baggins, it won't make Bilbo Baggins anymore present on earth than Peter in Rome. Nor do such Paintings of neccesity place such a fictitious happenstance in Rome. Time does not make truth of hearsay, guesses, or little pictures portraying an event from someone's life. Tell us, if Pictograms of Moses and Pharoah were found in Israel, would that mean Pharoah was in Israel? Not. Give us a break and credit for a brain.
Now if you can't give us one single bit of "factual evidence - proof" that he did not die in Rome, why should we respond to you on that issue. If you can't you should drop it now.
In other words, "How dare you require that we prove our claim?!" No, you make a loud and boastful claim that is unproven. If you are going to sell it, you must prove it. If you all can stand and call Joseph Smith a liar on his wild unproven claims, ya'll can prove your own wild unproven claims. If you can't, it's hot air and we are in no way obliged to honor it any more than Smith's stories of little winged men on the moon.
Exactly the sort of thing I've been referring to. But perhaps these things need to be gone over book by book, author by claimed author. How many guys in the back rooms of the Vatican were working on piecing this one together?
Ah, somebody else interpreted it a different way and built up a story on it so we're supposed to buy that instead of what the scripture actually says. And Clement is worthless. How many times must we revisit the facts about Clement? I'm surprised that any dare strait faced reference purported writings from a would be Clement at this point.
What does the verse say, He dresses himself and goes his way; but, later he'll stretch out his hands for another to dress him and he'll go with them. My Grandmother lived with my Aunt for some ten years before she died. My aunt dressed her, bathed her and moved her about at her convenience for most of that time because grandmother could not do for herself. It wasn't Grandmother's choice to have to lose her home and live with another; but, she couldn't maintain her own home anymore. And before we miss it here, one did have to stretch out thier hands to be dressed at the time - a robe goes on over the head. We still stretch out our hands to get dressed today, Try putting on a sweater. Else tell us how one might be crucified, then dressed, then taken where they don't want to go. The order is precisely backward in the writing of that which you make of it. It's an abuse of the language and our common sense.
The point isn't that they would be the persecutors and destroyers. The point was that they were to partake of the happenstance. Oops. Participation in his death and ressurection doesn't mean they have to kill or raise him, just means they have to be involved, witnessing any of it is to partake of it. Just as a crowd at a Nascar event partakes of the race, doesn't mean they are pit crew or driving, they are there. You get it right up to the point that your doctrine kicks in and takes over your thought process.
I take the Bible as Gospel truth. I consider it "trust God" stuff. Your clergy's claims and interpretations I take as the "trust us" stuff. And I was playing at your disclaimer lest some catholic see it and have you excommunicated for agreeing with a "proddy" LOL.
I would have to say, that would greatly depend. This is not a dodge. I don't think It's a fair question because to this point, we don't agree entirely upon what the Catholic Church teaches. With that Caviat, I'll say this: If one is saved, and then proceeds through life in obedience to God and his word, they are Christian - John 10: the sheep hear and obey - follow Christ. If one is not following in obedience, they do not fit the description and are therefore not Christian. That is Biblical definition. Now, if you can tell me how, as one example, one can pray to the dead in violation of Jewish Law every day and be considered in obedience to God, I'd love to hear the explanation of how that is spiritually or humanly possible. And Clinging to christian beliefs is nowhere in the definition. OOps again, I beleive. It doesn't say if you are disobedient but know better, your a sheep.. So based on scripture, answer your own question. My belief is on scripture. If the Scripture judges men plainly, it is supposed to. And if it angers people now, wait till it Judges them after death.
That's your make believe reality, not truth.
Havoc has been responded to numerous times. He claims the Catholic Church is built on lies and deceit. No matter what we offer to defend our beliefs, he can just claim its a lie and then assert his unsubstantiated claims. But it's OK for him to do that because that's not an attack. However, when I point out it is impossible to have a meaningful dialog with someone like that, you ask me not to attack him. Like I say, there are some posters who can't distinguish between truth and reality.
And was/is that always a good thing? Take a look at the internet. Any nutcase with a computer can publish, for the whole world to see, anything they want. It doesn't matter how factual their material is because there are no editors nor hardly any oversight. At the time, the printing press was comperable to the internet in its technological impact.
But your right, Luther and his ilk would have had a very hard time, and most likely would have failed, in spreading their heresies if it weren't for the printing press. What's funny is that a Catholic invented the thing. Oh what irony!
Pray for John Paul II
Not always, but overall, YES freedom and unfiltered information are good. But the RCC and it's members do have a problem with those concepts. They interfere with the RCC's own fascist plans.
Suffice it to say trinity doctrine has been around a long time and will remain. It is a false doctrine. You provide no explanation for the scriptures I cite to disprove trinity doctrine which brings out my main point: I don't mind being disagreed with but I do provide scripture for my beliefs.
If you wish to continue, provide your exegesis for the other scriptures I use to disprove trinity doctine. No one has yet to do such which is characteristic of those who adhere to this belief. God and His Christ become "one" when convenient but "two" or "three" when convenient also. I understand as this is the only way to find consistency with this doctrine from the bible but is not sufficient for those of us searching for truth.
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.