Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
Um, that makes it, by definition Presbyterian....
________________________________
It has been eye opening for me to read about the early church because it breaks down so many myth's. The most obvious being this grand hierarchal authority.
I am printing this post out and keeping it to remember and to give to my family and friends.
This is exactly what being a Catholic means to me.
Thank you. It was worth reading through this long thread to get to this post.
The assumption that Peter's imprisonment and angelic deliverance occurred in the same year as Herod's death is unjustified and unsupported.
he never mentions the name of Peter
It is likely that Paul knew that Peter was traveling away from Rome at that time. Given Peter's authority, only upon Peter's absence would Paul have written such an apostolic letter. Ray's timeline (mentioned earlier in this thread) shows Peter traveling in Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia during this time (i.e. the time when Paul wrote the letter to the Romans).
Not once is Peter mentioned in this epistle and since Paul is asking for the presence of Mark only we can assume that Peter is already dead.
There are other alternatives to which you are not giving sufficient consideration. One is that Mark the nephew of Barnabas is not the "John Mark" of Acts 12 who wrote the Gospel of Mark and became the first bishop of Alexandria. Another is that since Timothy is in Ephesus, and Peter was in Rome, we shouldn't expect Paul to saying anything to Timothy about Peter. It is possible that Peter and Paul were both imprisoned at the same time, though in different cells. (I've actually visited the traditional cell in Rome where Paul is said to have been chained. It is utterly dark and dank, small, and not joined to other cells like in an American prison.) So we have to be careful not to put weight on arguments from silence when there are so other equally plausible explanations for Paul's not mentioning Peter. Peter himself refers to "our beloved brother Paul" in 2 Peter 3:15, and this epistle is thought to have been written shortly before Peter's death, since he says that the "laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent". (2 Peter 1:14). There is no good reason therefore, to reject the testimony of the patristic tradition that Peter and Paul were martyred at the same time under Nero in Rome, probably in 67 AD.
For those who think Peter was in Iraq (and not Rome), if you know anything about ancient geography, you will see that it would be very odd for him to be have been writing letters to "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" from present-day Iraq. (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 3:1) Since he was writing letters to those places, he most likely had traveled there and in his two epistles was writing follow-up letters to strengthen the churches there in the faith. The only place relatively near to those locations, that would make sense to be referred to as 'Babylon', is Rome.
-A8
Most fogies are foggie. That's what makes them a fogie.
We'll add some bad church music and he can be a fuguie
This looks like a good link. I haven't read it yet...
"...There is a deeper reason for a mystic being "mute" — that is what the name imports — than that he wishes to make a mystery of his discoveries. He is "mute" because, as a mystic, he has nothing to say. When he sinks within himself he finds feelings, not conceptions; his is an emotional, not a conceptional, religion; and feelings, emotions, though not inaudible, are not articulate. As a mystic, he has no conceptional language in which to express what he feels..."
We have historical information from Josephus (a reputable source) stipulating that Herod Agrippa died in A.D.45. As pointed out in post # 1438 Peter was in and about Jerusalem from Pentecost to A.D. 54. We know for a fact he was there at the Council in A.D. 51. I never said Peter was delivered from prison the same year Herod died.....but obviously Herod died thereafter....and we know when it was (45 A.D.).
It is likely that Paul knew that Peter was traveling away from Rome at that time. Given Peter's authority, only upon Peter's absence would Paul have written such an apostolic letter.
Why would this be likely? Paul was given the authority, not Peter. To presuppose that Peter was anywhere in or about Rome at any time is speculation.
There are other alternatives to which you are not giving sufficient consideration. One is that Mark the nephew of Barnabas is not the "John Mark" of Acts 12 who wrote the Gospel of Mark and became the first bishop of Alexandria.
The reason we know that this Mark is the companion of Peter is that Paul is asking for Timothy to also stop and get his "scrolls and parchments" at Troas. He had evidently left them there when he had been arrested the final time and wanted to make sure these "Scriptures" [2 Peter 3:15-16] would be placed in safe hands....probably having Mark and Timothy take them to the Apostle John. Mark, of course, would be bringing along with him all of Peter's writings as well as the Book of Mark. Paul was already in possession of the works of Luke....as Luke was with him. Jude and the Book of Hebrews, I'm certain, would also have been among Paul's possessions at that time.
I believe you see the initial canonizing of the New Testament here. Certainly by that time the Book of Matthew had been copied countless times and as soon as John received the "Parchments, Scrolls, Peter's writings and Luke's" he would have added his own books and we would then have had all of New testament scripture present for the early churches. We do know that John and the Greeks safe guarded the original writings.
There is no Biblical record of Peter ever having been in or about Rome and much evidence points to the contrary. It makes no sense that scripture would be completely silent about his presence there if he was that instrumental in the development of the Roman Church.
The distinction between mysticism of this type and evangelical Christianity, from the point of view which is now occupying our attention, is nevertheless clear. Evangelical Christianity interprets all religious experience by the normative revelation of God recorded for us in the Holy Scriptures, and guides, directs, and corrects it from these Scriptures, and thus molds it into harmony with what God in His revealed Word lays down as the normal Christian life.
The mystic, on the other hand, tends to substitute his religious experience for the objective revelation of God recorded in the written Word, as the source from which he derives his knowledge of God, or at least to subordinate the expressly revealed Word as the less direct and convincing source of knowledge of God to his own religious experience. The result is that the external revelation is relatively depressed in value, if not totally set aside
For the first 300 years the early church just ran around evangelizing until so many goofy views started springing up that someone decided that perhaps it would be good to write down what Christians believe. The "grand hierarchal" that the early fathers refer to is simply because there was no other choices up until this time. Interesting, the Orthodox never recognized a Pope as the top dog.
Interesting how many feel they need "mysticism" in their Christian walk.
Now Bro Harley . . . please . . . avoid forcing me to deal with two major . . . conflicts in the same thread???!!! LOL.
Then 'splain this one for me:
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 2Th 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
Here we see the Church as the proper authority to which individuals may appeal where differences arise.
Don't think I do not respect Apostolic authority or a church's authority. This is not the case. If it were, then how could I quote from their writings? The point is, if their writings are secondary to oral succession, then why even have the writings? If this is the case, then why do y'all quote these writings? What authority do you have to defend your Church. The debate for all Catholics should end with, "because they say so".
It is interesting that you post scriptures indicating that the laity have the ability and even the duty to interpret scripture and identify sin on their own. The question here is that what to do when the church is in sin or teaching errors.
Adiaireton8 is advocating a course of action, namely prayer for the reconciliation of the person who has been excommunicated. This is an act of love, correct? This is also entirely consistent with St. Paul's example after he directs the community at Corinth to excommunicate a son and his mother or stepmother for incest (1 Cor 5: 1,2), he nonetheless admonishes the church to act with charity toward these two individuals. (2 Cor 2:5-11)
1Co 5:5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
The result of the first controversy you post is that Paul decides to give the offender the death penalty since, because he cannot stop sinning, it is better for him to be dead and hope to be judged well at the resurrection. Does this, perhaps, give us an insight as to what the first Bishop of Rome would have done to these pedophile priests and their leaders who covered for them?
2Co 2:6 Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority,
Again, the majority of the laity decided what was sin (interpreted scripture on their own) and took care of the matter. This does not say, "You should not have interpreted scripture on your own, you're busted when I get there". It says, "good job for taking care of business".
Since St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila were mentined here as "mystics", I have to say that the second paragraph in this post--apparently quoted from a link, does not present Christian mysticism in its true sense.
St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila,--and St. Therese, and St. Elizabeth of the Trinity, based their writings strictly on Scripture.
I realize this is tangental to the original thread topic, but if one is not familiar and conversant with the works of these Catholic "mystics", then what is said about them is not accurately understood or portrayed.
I think it's inmportant to make distinctions re:a faulty and generalized description of mysticism, as if were self-delusion or occultic in nature.
Again, that's something for different thread, but since it has come up and beeen defined from one source, I want to clarify that the source does not offer an accurate or more comprehensive understanding. Even the use of the words "tends to" and "relatively" give away that this is generalization.
typos and failure to spellcheck...mea culpa.
This is not unique to your organization...For us Christians who received the Holy Spirit upon calling on Christ to save us, we have these same things, always...Not just at communion...But we have communion to reflect upon that Last Supper and the crucifiction...
But we don't get raised up everytime we eat the bread and drink the juice...We ARE raised up to sit with Jesus Christ, now and forever...We don't keep going up and down before and after communion...
But I always wondered, how long does a Eucharist last???How long can you go between Eucharists before you need to get 'refueled'???
Every Catholic I talked to (you are the exception) says you guys can not possibly have assurance of being raised up with Christ...
Those of us on the other side know we have that assurance and if you do, you maybe ought to pass that knowledge along to some of the other Catholics...
List for us all the Ante-Nicene Fathers and their exact words right here for us. We want you to show us. Post the precise words so we can check them out for ourselves. Maybe the complete list of Ante-Nicene fathers testifying to this Petrine Bishopric in Rome will bring this matter to an end. Come on, adaire, adaire ya. Let's see documented facts, from the earliest through the AnteNicene period. No more rhetoric. Post your "Fathers'" words, so that we can all see what you choose to trust rather than the Scriptures themselves.
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.