Posted on 06/07/2007 4:07:42 AM PDT by markomalley
Although written in 66 books by over 40 authors over a period of 4000 years, every word in the bible is there exactly as God wanted it to be. Every Jot and Every Tittle.
Wholly infallible in the autographs, preserved by the will of God for the dissemination of Truth through all ages.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV)
Agreed. That is why we should refer to scripture:
Take a look at I Cor 2:
But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him," God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Bottom line is that the Holy Spirit enlightens men's hearts. Not us. Consequently, Paul's recommendation to Titus (3:10) should be our guide:
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.
Patient explanation, don't let them frame the argument, and we can't get emotional over it. Just isn't worth it!
IMHO, FWIW, YMMV...
You wrote:
“I believe the first to make the claim that he was the first bishop of Rome was Eusebius followed by Jerome.”
So Eusebius and Jerome represent the sum total of the magisterium? Which one, Eusebius or Jerome, was pope? Neither. Which one was a Church council? Neither.
You’ve got to be able to do better than that, Uncle Chip.
“Both claimed that he became bishop of Rome in the 2nd year of Claudius [42 AD] and held the sacerdotal chair for 25 years until the 14th year of Nero [67 AD] -— all of which stretches credulity to such an extent that even the Catholic Encyclopedia has backed away from their claims.”
Whether or not it stretches credulity in your mind is immaterial. When will you post evidence that the magisterium teaches Peter was the first bishop of Rome? Again, I’m just curious as to how you came to the conclusion it does when I knew you probably would be unable to substantiate it. Maybe you’ll do it on your second try?
See Post 118
I just did. I think Mark has a point.
And Post #118 cites a reference that has dissenting verbiage in it, thus showing that whether or not Peter was the first bishop of Rome is not a concluded dogma nor is it part of the Magesterium. Here (click on the link) are the citations in the Catechism for the word "Rome" -- nowhere will you see that it says Peter was the first bishop of Rome. It says in a number of places that the Pope is the successor to Peter; however, that is not the same thing.
It is commonly accepted that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, but that is a matter of history, not dogma (and Vladimir, please correct me if I'm in error there). And, as I asked you in Post 118, if there is some factual evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to accept it. That offer still stands.
Sorry...forgot to close the “I” tag after the word “was” — hope it doesn’t make it too difficult to read.
Well he was a physician. And we all know physicians who are asses. So we have to admit it's a possibility.
Just saying ...
No --- that is a matter of Tradition not History. And it is a Tradition that began with Eusebius.
I don't have time to look it up right now (if it would matter to you anyway), but there are Patristic writings of far greater antiquity than Eusebius' Church History that make that statement.
Gee, MD. I do believe you just exhibited a keen sense of humor.
Let me introduce you to tiki.
Tiki, meet Mad Dawg.
The Bible is a Catholic Book?
Tell that to the Chosen people of the Old Testament.
Uncle Chip, you wrote,
“No -— that is a matter of Tradition not History. And it is a Tradition that began with Eusebius.”
Actually, as J Van Engen notes in the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, “Protestants once vigorously attacked all stories about Peter’s end, but the best evidence, as most scholars now agree, indicates that he in fact died a martyr in the time of Nero and that his cult originated very early in Rome, though Cullmann believes he was probably executed rather than buried at the present St. Peter’s on the Vatican Hill.”
It seems to me that most Protestant scripture scholars denied Peter was the Rock. Now, however, some (and increasingly more of them) accept the idea.
It seems to me that most Protestant historians denied that Peter was ever in Rome at all. Now, however, many(and increasingly more of them) accept the idea.
As JND Kelley wrote: “It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where ‘BABYLON’ is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter’s companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome.” (Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 6)
It seems to me that all Protestant historians once denied Peter held a special office. Now, however, some (and increasingly more of them) accept the idea even if with qualifiers like those thought up by O. Cullman.
We know why Protestants once so strongly contested these things. How do we know? They told us: “...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.” (Adolph Harnack cited in, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, by William Stuart McBirnie, 63).
Good luck in your search. I don't think you will find anything until maybe the 3rd century. And while you are at it, check on that 42 AD date again, because Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, and Hippolytus all tell us that it was Simon Magus who came to Rome in 42 AD and had a long ecclesiastical Roman bishopric there that ended under Nero ------ not Simon Peter.
Yup.
Tell that to the Chosen people of the Old Testament.
OK, since the subject of the Old Testament is the Messiah, the Head of the Catholic Church. (that person is Jesus Christ: I say the obvious in an effort to preempt trolls)
Does that include the translations? In any case, the oldest copies of Biblical texts in their original languages we have do vary (jot and tittle)among themselves. Then we have the problem of the Septuagent, which was the Scripture used by the Gospel writers. Are we really compelled to canonize only the books in Hebrew? By whose authority? And the basic question: MUST we treat the Bible as the Muslim’s treat the Qur’an: as the VERY Word of God. The Word of God is not a book: He is Jesus.
I think it’s personal to call someone a fool. Our Lord advised us against doing that.
It also is personal to call someone deceitful if you aren’t absolutely sure of that person has the intention to deceive.
Poor stewardship to engage here.
No. In the original autographs. In any case, the oldest copies of Biblical texts in their original languages we have do vary (jot and tittle)among themselves.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18 KJV)
Obviously Jesus felt that every letter of the Bible was and every jot and tittle was there for a specific reason.
Are we really compelled to canonize only the books in Hebrew?
You will probably not rot in hell forever for using the septuagent.
And the basic question: MUST we treat the Bible as the Muslim’s treat the Qur’an: as the VERY Word of God.
You don't have to treat it as the VERY Word of God. It is. But you don't have to treat it that way.
The Word of God is not a book: He is Jesus.
Indeed, and His Words are in the Bible. He inspired them. They, like all his creations, were perfect in the autographs.
Again, I don't believe you will rot in hell forever for refusing to recognize the importance of scripture as the FINAL authority in all matters of faith and morals. God forgives a multitude of sins.
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.