Skip to comments.
Africa grapples with Romans 13
UPI ^
| July 3, 2002
| Uwe Siemon-Netto
Posted on 07/03/2002 7:53:56 PM PDT by gcruse
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
To: Jerry_M
...the IIIx will become a "Jerry" machine with my Bible, some good reformed docs, and some ham radio software.
Sounds like some real PDA fun to me. And, not too far back, I would have scoffed at the idea that these devices are useful. Finally, they're substantial enough in storage and display to be taken seriously. They already have 1 gigabyte flash memories on the market. And they're bringing out the
Oqo which is a pocket-sized micro-notebook that runs full-blown Windows XP and can dock as a regular desktop computer.
It's the future. But for now, these smaller devices can already deliver a tremendous wallop. I know a lot of techs who store vast amounts of PDF technical documents on the PDAs already.
BTTT
To: Catholicguy; George W. Bush
You picked the wrong battlefield for this fight. I have William A Jurgens "The Faith of the Early Fathers" in my home library.So what?
I will NOT engage in a point by point refutation of your falsehoods. I will merely cite your first error re Clement. In his "Who is the rich man that is saved?", a.d. 190/210, St. Clement of Alexandria says this about Peter..."On hearing these words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminnent, the first among he disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Savior paid the tribute, quickly grasped their meaning..."
What kind of debate tactic is this, playing directly into my hands and proving my own arguments for me??
Sure, Clement calls Peter "pre-eminent" among the Apostles, as he surely was in the early Pentecost/post-Pentecost period (roughly Acts 1-5). And Clement also tells us that Peter deferred his "pre-eminence" to James, who was elected to the "Episcopal Throne" at Jerusalem (NOT Rome) as the "Bishop of bishops".
- Clement, the bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215 CE), who confirms in Outlines, Bk. VI: "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."
- Eusebius (263 - 339 CE), Historia Ecclesia ii,23.4: ".....turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."
- Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5: "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."
- Origen (185 - 254 CE), quoting early Josephus: "These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ."
- Josephus (37 - c. 100 CE), Antiquities xx: "So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."
- Clement: "When James the Righteous had suffered martyrdom like the Lord and for the same reason, Symeon, the son of his Uncle Clopas, was appointed bishop. He being a cousin of the Lord."
- Eusebius: "A group of heretics accused the descendants of Jude...the brother, humanly speaking, of the Savior...on the ground that they were of David's line and related to Christ himself."
Cribbing from second hand sources to attack Divinely-constituted authority might seem "Triumphalistic" to some but it is a truimphalism of a very odd sort. I will not waste my time "debating" such rudimentary facts. Lets those with eyes to see read. The writings of the Catholic Church Fathers are availaable at www.newadvent.com
Clement, Eusebius, Josephus, the Bible itself... these are not "second hand sources" or "fabulous tales". The evidence of History is overwhelming, and it is utterly damning to the false Private Interpretation of "petrine supremacy".
Peter himself did not believe in "Petrine Supremacy"; rather, Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17) and Peter obeyed James (Acts 15: 13-22) and Peter deferred to James (Acts 21:18) and Peter feared James (Galatians 2:12). What kind of Petrine "Papacy" is this!!
In fact, not a single verse of Scripture suggests any kind of "Petrine Succession", and such a dogma was NOT the practice of the Early Church:
In the epistles (epitomes) attached to the Homilies, Peter calls James "the Lord and bishop of the Holy Church" (tw kuriw kai episkopw thV agiaV ekklhsiaV, to kurio kai episkopo ths agias eklhsias) and Clement addresses him as "the lord, and bishop of bishops (domino et episcopo episcoporum), who rules Jerusalem, the holy Church of the Hebrews and Churches everywhere excellently founded by the provinces of God, with elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren." ~~ (GLIMPSES OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY FROM THE END OF ACTS TO JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D. 62-150), J. Julius Scott, Jr, Wheaton College)
Your entire religious superstructure is founded upon an erroneous "private interpretation"... a Lie.
You post your hit-and-run Links and hope that they constitute an "answer", but the truth is that you have NO counter-argument -- and you know it.
You are grasping at straws, CG, but you cannot save your edifice of Lies from the witness of the Early Church historians, and the Bible Itself.
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Clement, Eusebius, Josephus, the Bible itself... these are not "second hand sources" or "fabulous tales". The evidence of History is overwhelming, and it is utterly damning to the false Private Interpretation of "petrine supremacy".
What can I say? Excellent rebuttal!
To: George W. Bush
KJV bump. I'm not precisely an onlyist. I just strongly tend to trust far more the Bible that evangelized the English-speaking world and withstood centuries of scrutiny by orthodox scholars instead of these modernist Bibles, nearly all relying upon the work of heretics and unbelievers and whose text is guaranteed to change every so many years in order to retain their copyrights and profits. So enjoy your current NAS for now. But don't bother to memorize it. They're going to change it several more times in your lifetime for the sake of publishing profits. But I'll readily admit that I'll look to other sources when studying a key verse. I don't want to be ignorant of other translations or ignore the changes in the English language since the last revision of the KJV over 150 years ago. Some of the argument over the 1611 bit are specious. All current KJV bibles (except a few specialty editions) are a revision from the early nineteenth century. But an 1828 Websters dictionary is enough to clarify archaic words. Amen for your KJV bump!
To: Richard Kimball
Paul really got a raw deal: "For I will show him how he must suffer for my name" This may sound like a nit pick: but this is a quotation not apropos to the argument. Paul, while still Saul, did his best to trash Jesus Christ to the point of getting Christians violently killed. He had to suffer more than most other Christians, as a matter of poetic justice. Christians must be willing to suffer when God calls them to do so for the sake of Jesus Christ, but they should not idolize suffering itself. Paul didn't; as a Christian he had pleasant times as well as painful.
To: fortheDeclaration
If we really wanted to be originalists, we would study in Hebrew and Greek. The divine inspiration of the literal words took place in those languages, not in Latin or English or Russian or what have you. Argue with the secular Nestle compilation all you want, but it does give the most objective statistical view of the New Testament manuscripts that we have, and is the reason why most modern translations have footnotes on the variant readings. I'm the opposite of an onlyist; I'm an "allist." To ask the question of which one Bible we should trust, foolishly presupposes an answer of a certain kind. It's like asking what one food you would eat.
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
And Calvinist Christians ARE moving... as fast as we can. ping
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
How good does a government have to get before it passes the "Seneca test"? How is it that the conduct of any fallible man be a yardstick? This is an idea totally foreign to the Bible.
Rather the principle is that government should be obeyed to any point short of sinning. Even a tyrannical government is almost always better than no government at all.
Did not Paul write that Christians "joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property"? Yes, the Bible does say that! We are very very fortunate that we live in a country that officially ordains the freedom for its government to be roundly criticized and complained about. Only at our peril do we mistake this freedom for a divinely ordained right.
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Goodbye,O.P.
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Peter himself did not believe in "Petrine Supremacy"; rather, Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17)"
I will cite this error as yet another example of why it is impossible to have an exchange with you. Anyone can read Acts 12:17 and see it refers to Peter, after being freed from prison by an angel,going to the house of Mary, the mother of John, and when they answer the door upon which he has been knocking, he tells them how the Lord brought him out of prison and he tells them to inform James and the brethren about the events.
Now, OP, in your twisted view, that Scripture somehow is tortured to mean that Peter is "reporting to James." That is, quite simply, insane.
I knew I was wrong to even make the attempt to have an exchange with you and it is a mistake I won't ever make again. Goodbye
To: Catholicguy; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Well, certainly a novel playing of the "thou-art-insane" theological trump card.
Hopefully, OPie won't be too crushed to retort...
To: Darth Sidious
I wonder if the Founding Fathers sinned when they resisted the authorities... namely King George III. Actually, the political literature of their day included several books derived from the famous Chapter XX of Calvin's Institutes. Since magistrates are in the business of doing justice (enforcing God's law), we honor God by resisting those who go off the rails. The American "revolution" was more of a conservative counter-revolution, under the direction of duly constituted "lesser magistrates," against the revolutionary madness of King George and his renegade parliment.
To: Catholicguy; George W. Bush
Now, OP, in your twisted view, that Scripture somehow is tortured to mean that Peter is "reporting to James." That is, quite simply, insane.The Scripture says what it says: Peter reported to James. The other apostles were afterthoughts by comparison.
Just like in Acts 21:18, when Paul goes to see the Council, and all the Bishops were present. But does Paul give a whit about Peter's presence? No, Paul could not care less about Peter; James is the Head Poohbah of Acts 21:18, and the Bible says so. Which accounts for Peter's FEAR of James in Galatians 2. Some "pope"!!
You know these verses annihilate your position. So, you now tuck your tail between your legs and run back to Rome, even though you now know for a fact that her claims are lies. Think about what that means for your soul, CG.....
I knew I was wrong to even make the attempt to have an exchange with you and it is a mistake I won't ever make again. Goodbye.
Huh. (OP snorts derisively, blows the smoke from his theological six-shooters). Another one bites the dust.
Next??
"I fear one Calvinist protestant armed with a slingshot more than I fear a dozen Arminian protestants armed with shotguns", said the old Jesuit apologists...
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ironsides bump. ;^)
To: HiTech RedNeck; headsonpikes
Did not Paul write that Christians "joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property"?Sure, but they weren't so nutty as to actively vote in favor of the confiscation of their property!!
As a Christian -- yeah, you can tolerate State Theft (even joyfully, relying on God's provision)... but you can't vote for it, that's a Violation of the Eighth Commandment!!
To: gcruse
The anarchists on this website have a big problem with that as well.
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"I fear one Calvinist protestant armed with a slingshot more than I fear a dozen Arminian protestants armed with shotguns", said the old Jesuit apologists...
That's because the Jesuits knew full well which kind of Protestant would just talk and which kind would shoot.
To: George W. Bush
That's because the Jesuits knew full well which kind of Protestant would just talk and which kind would shoot.Heh... Personally, I secretly suspect it was because the wily Jesuits knew that the Arminian's shotguns were Roman-supplied, and only fired ammunition designed to damage Protestant Doctrine.
To: Wrigley
ping
79
posted on
07/05/2002 11:37:35 AM PDT
by
GTXfan
To: HiTech RedNeck
this is a quotation not apropos to the argument. I probably wasn't clear enough in the original post. A lot of televangelists say that they drive a Mercedes because they trust Jesus and Jesus intended for them to drive a Mercedes. It's part of the "name it, claim it", which IMHO has a lot more to do with new age visualization than Christianity. A person who truly commits to following Christ doesn't do it because of promises of riches in this world. Christ never suffered simply for the point of self-pain, and in fact, prayed to not suffer the pain of the crucifiction. However, he followed the path laid out for him, regardless of where it went. If I implied that Christians should SEEK suffering, please accept my apology. My point was intended to be that I hear a lot of people claim they want to be used by Christ. Well, St. Stephen was used by Christ, he got in one good sermon, and they stoned him to death. He did not seek the stoning, but he did what was asked of him, without regard to the consequences.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson