Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
Circulate? When was it written? How do you know that Revelation is the first instance of this code name? And how do you know that Peter didn't already use it? Christians were largely underground at the time; they would have needed to misdirect any Roman inquisitors away from overt criticism of the Empire.
Good example of how the Lord did reach out to the Gentiles; I think that we would all agree that His mission was primarily to the Jews. I still think that He first sent his disciples to the Jews because a: they were primarily Jewish and could speak the language, knew the customs, and could convince the peoples that they knew more easily, b: they could build up a base at home that they could launch from, and c: it gave them practice before they were sent out into the whole world.
But notice to whom it is addressed: "the sojourners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asis, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God" --- those are the Jews of the diaspora in northern Asia Minor.
I need to go look for the case that Judge Edenfield of the Northern District heard back in the 70s, involving a prisoner who started a religion called "The Church of the New Song" . . . the Sacrament being T-bone steaks and rye whisky, which of course he expected the warden to provide . . .
But, seriously, I wasn't saying they were identical . . . I was saying that local autonomy means that one church may hold quite a different set of beliefs from another in the same denomination.
Of course, Baptists tend to differ on matters like the use of musical instruments in church or the scope of dispensationalism . . . NOT the existence of God!
I've followed some of your discussion and agree in that He did reach out to Gentiles - His salvation is open to all. But, I find a difference in who you refer to as "Jews". My understanding is that He was sent unto the House of Israel, His lost sheep. They are Hebrews, but not Jews. The tribe of Judah are those that carry that name. 10 of the other tribes, at times referred to as the "10 lost tribes" are the House of Israel.
I don't think it's a small point as so much of prophecy is written to the 2 distinct groups.
Yes, I see. I agree with you. Sloppy on my part, really.
Because those who use it have obviously read John's book and are using his terminology.
And how do you know that Peter didn't already use it? Christians were largely underground at the time; they would have needed to misdirect any Roman inquisitors away from overt criticism of the Empire.
How come Paul does not use this code name for Rome for his writings from and to Rome? And what about Luke and the others? How come they didn't use that code name?
Peter was a straight-forward apostle who would and did speak his mind and told things just as they were --- without fear and deception.
If you assume that it was a code name, then where is the decoding book? How about "Mark" --- maybe that is a code word for someone else. And "Peace" might be a code word too.
What other words in the NT letters were code words that didn't mean what they said?
Delusional maybe, but what the heck!
It seems you think that equivalence is self-evident. I am willing to bet serious money that the people writing the notes for the NAB and the NEB read the same words you did and reached another conclusion. How do you explain that?
Both my NEB and my NAB have (the same Oxford cartographer) maps. So, yeah, I knew where those provinces were.
Don't you just love people. I bet the judge could hardly suppress his laughter. And I would have LOVED to have been the guy's attorney.
But, but, your Honor! Religions involving intoxicating liquors and the flesh of ruminants reach back into the furthest bourne of human history. .....
Pass the fig newtons.
Do you know what a spider is? It is a frying pan (among other things. An arachnid for instance.). Both definitions are correct based usually on regionality. Get my point?
Ummmm! I like fig newtons. I'll check back in this afternoon. Just too busy here during Lent.
Guess that's a good thing.
You know, Old Reggie, I don't understand why you come on these Catholic vs. Protestant threads. After all, you claim to be a Unitarian, which by definition, isn't even Christian. Like they say, you don't have a dog in this hunt.
You weren't sloppy at all. It's just that I was so surprised to learn of the difference in the 2 houses when I began to really study that I wished someone had told me of that fact long ago. It's always so wonderful so see the real truth of His Word.
It's not obvious to me. How do you arrive at your conclusions?
We have a documented and agreed upon code word in the New Testament - Babylon for Rome. We are not discussing any others which may or may not exist. The charge has been made that Peter was nevef in Rome. We have evidence that he was.
I understand that there is a great desire to discredit Peter as having the primacy, and thus by so doing they attempt to deny that he was the first Pope, and therefore the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession would fall apart. By denying Apostolic Succession they would then try to show that the Catholic Church is not the Church which Jesus Christ founded. It isn't going to happen, but the great desire is there in some measure as justification for all the split-off churches. If the Catholic Church turns out to be founded by men, then that lets some of the pressure off all those whose churches really were founded by men.
The Emperor Claudius (Acts 18:2) tries to get rid of all Jews from Rome. If Babylon is the code word for Rome, then this conclusion is actually more justified Scripturally than yours is. Is it possible that the Roman Catholic Church is much more Bible based than are the Bible-based Protestants? It would seem so, given that we have the entire Bible, not an abridged version; we have never eliminated any of the Old Testament and we have never changed the intent of any of Sacred Scripture. It seems that modern Christian sects are given to hysterical attitudes that concentrate on producing ever new interpretations of these millennia-old verses.
I know that Jesus came to the Jews first. After all, they were the covenant people. But that doesn't mean that the Gentiles were to be excluded from salvation!
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.