Posted on 09/11/2014 12:08:50 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Likewise. My participation on the RF is rare, as it is mostly a temptation and stumbling block to me. From time to time I do lurk and will chime in when something catches my eye, as did my FRiend roamer's comment about the "clear word."
Let Michael Voris set you straight.and all decided seemingly in unison (we are a tight knit group, we minions) that now, right about now ! would be an excellent time to just go ahead and relax a bit and let that maniacal laughter you have been so long holding back, come roaring out, Mein Führer.
HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!
V. Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray. O GOD, whose only begotten Son, by His life, death, and resurrection, has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life, grant, we beseech Thee, that meditating upon these mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise, through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen.
After each decade say the following prayer requested by the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima: “O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy.”
That is interesting. More, please on how this would relate to the early church, in light of Stephen's martyrdom after his address in the synagogue.
Thank you for your response. I am a lawyer. By my credentials, I have an authority of office by which I am permitted to appear before the court and make my case. But if I made my case on strictly my lawerly office, how far would that get me? "Your honor, I am a lawyer, therefore when I say my client is innocent, it must be true." Do you see how that doesn't make sense? Indeed, such an action would probably draw a sanction from the judge.
But when I want to win my case, what do I do? I use the authority of my office to cite to the real authority, statutory law and the case law that interprets it. I am recognizing in that act that the true authority does not rest in my office, but in legal truth (such as it is).
By the same token, while it is entertaining to speculate about photographic memories, in truth the jury is free to infer that copious and exacting reference to Scripture very well could be an indication that said Scripture was in the possession of Polycarp, and if not for the pressure of your argument to find otherwise, would naturally lead to that conclusion.
But more importantly, whether by memory or by reference to a physical text, Polycarp is following in a long tradition, exampled by both Christ Himself and His apostles, of citing to the word of God as the dispositive authority in any contest of ideas about God and Christian truth. And in truth, if Christ is our only true Master, and God our only true Father, how else could it be?
Peace,
SR
Post of the day and dead on accurate.
Instructing the ignorant, and we do have our work cut out for us.
Then why do so may of your brethren and sistren insist on calling themselves "bible ALONE" christians?
I may not be dismissing Lampe so much as your interpretation of him. Either way, I’m happy to look at the scholarship, especially if it is as good a collection of primary sources as it seems.
But don’t wave that blanket “bias” charge. It’s a lousy cop-out and terrible form for a historian. Every man is who he is and looks at things a certain way.
And don’t forget SR, that your claim against Petrine primacy rests not only on Irenaeus but on a whole tissue of assumptions from the interpretation of “Petros” on down to every disputed passages in the Fathers.
Oh it’s real easy to not see any factual evidence when you’ve already conveniently dismissed everything inimical to your case, n’est-ce pas?
The same group of people decided against the NT and had the OT in a different order. Still think they got it right laughing boy.
actually it is automatic, there is no need for a formal declaration.
Here's his contemporary Justin Martyr:
"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things."
The NT was originally not a bound book published for personal home instruction. It was a collection of documents circulated and read liturgically.
Tell that to my RC relatives. If the Church was serious about that, the membership lists could be edited immediately and everyone not on the list treated as lost pagans. How many would still be in attendance after that? In the Chicago area I'm betting you'd lose more than half. When I see that happen, then I'll take your "automatic excommunication" seriously. Until then, I see it as a mere rationalization, a bit of paper that formalizes the fallacy that "no true Scotsman" would ever behave so badly.
Peace,
SR
Indeed. I have to keep reminding myself what I’m doing here lest my Mediterranean temper give entry to pride and the devil.
I'm not a historian, never claimed to be. As an attorney, I look at bias all the time, because in a contest of memories, you have to at least recognize the possibility, just as you said, that witnesses are necessarily operating within the limits of their own perspective. In that sense, the bias is not meant to discredit the person, only to stay alert for confirmation bias generally, to which we are all subject, fallible creatures that we are.
As for Petrine supremacy etc., the burden is on the party making the positive assertion. My belief or disbelief on the subject is conditioned by the affirmative evidence presented. In the absence of such evidence, the only honest position I can take is to reject the theory as having no authority to bind the Christian's conscience.
I’m not a historian either, but in this context we both are discussing historical events and so must adopt their methodology.
But, that knife cuts two ways. The heretics were not ignorant of Holy Scripture. As much as I find snip quotes sometimes tedious, I will submit:
A new reformation was therefore necessary. Marcion felt himself entrusted with this commission, and the church which he gathered recognized this vocation of his to be the reformer. 35 He did not appeal to a new revelation such as he presupposed for Paul. As the Pauline Epistles and an authentic "evangelion of the Lord" were in existence, it was only necessary to purify these from interpolations, and restore the genuine Paulinism which was just the Gospel itself.
Marcion From Adolf Von Harnack, History of Dogma
But when I want to win my case, what do I do? I use the authority of my office to cite to the real authority, statutory law and the case law that interprets it. I am recognizing in that act that the true authority does not rest in my office, but in legal truth (such as it is).
Was not Marcion doing exactly this? And it worked, requiring several ecumenical councils over hundreds of years to continue to refute the heresy and preserve the chain of orthodoxy (right belief).
Is it fair to say that the Holy Scripture is "statutory law" and the councils are "case law"?
I do not dispute that. I entered the conversation after the oft repeated wranglings about Peter when roamer tossed that softball about a "clear word." That rekindled the memory of my own spiritual journey when I had to grapple with why I believed what I thought I believed. And among the first, the question of authority had to be dealt with.
it was only necessary to purify these from interpolations,
No, this is not the same as citing to Scripture for authority, and objectively so. Marcion's "interpolations" correspond more closely to the undertaking of higher criticism, where no text is presumed to be authentic, but more like an archeological gradient that must be brushed away to get a little closer to (but never actually arriving at) the "authentic" text.
Put another way, Marcion attacked the received text as inauthentic. That is the opposite of appeal to it's authority. It is analogous to the serpent in the garden hissing, "has God said ..." to insinuate doubt into holy writ, not confidence in the same.
But even Christ during His temptation was not offput by Satan's own misquoting of Scripture, but fires Scripture right back at him, because Scripture handled truthfully becomes a mighty weapon in the hand of the believer, and I for one am not willing to lay it down:
Eph 6:14-17 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; (15) And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; (16) Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. (17) And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Peace,
SR
I am aware of the various arguments, and I really don't need to defend it further. As it stands, there is more solid proof here than in Rome. And if this were finally disproved, it still would not point me back to a Roman grave in pagan profaned ground. Even if he was buried there, his family would not leave him there. The offense is too great, and they would want his bones at home.
And we can concoct scenarios all day about Peter going along the Silk Road. But the weight of the evidence just isn’t there.
Actually, the literal weight of the evidence IS there - It is where Peter ~says~ that he is, taking his words in context, at face value, and your appeals to tradition notwithstanding. And it makes sense for him to actually be in Babylon - The longstanding centers of Judaism having been Jerusalem, Babylon, and Alexandria - With Babylonian tradition being second only to Jerusalem. Converting Babylon would have a tremendous impact, so it is not surprising at all that the Apostles would spend their resources there.
And did you forget that a sizable population of Jews was in Rome?
No, but there is still the insurmountable silence of Paul. And that Paul writes to Rome as though no one else has yet been there (that they might be established). IIRC, according to your tradition, Peter would have had to have been made pope some 15 years before Paul ever even arrived - So why then the need for establishment? It makes no sense.
Perhaps offset by the ministry we know the most about - Paul - Who is seen in synagogues all the way along.
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.