Posted on 06/07/2007 4:07:42 AM PDT by markomalley
You wrote:
“How do you know this?”
HOw do you NOT know this?
Who is going to be buried in your grave? Someone else? No, you.
You wrote:
“It’s irrelevant who determined that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew once it is determined.”
So it would be irrelevant who determined that Peter’s bones were Peter’s bones once it was determined?
“At that point, he is an apostle, and his words are more relevant than anyone else’s words.”
He was an Apostle? Are you sure? Where is it in scripture that it says the author of the gospel was an Apostle? After all, do we know from scripture alone that the Matthew that supposedly wrote the gospel was actually the same person as the apostle of the same name? Post the verse that proves what you claim please.
When you fail to post such a verse - and you will fail — we will know one of the following:
1) sola scriptura doesn’t work or just isn’t enough.
2) there are no such verses
Which is it?
“We are subject to the apostles, not to Cardinal Joe Blow some 2000 years later.”
You are claiming to be subjects of dead men?
“And we have Matthew’s words.”
How do you know Matthew wrote them? Post the verse.
You’ll fail. And you know it too.
Actually, I won’t fail. Matthew’s words are attested to by the prophecies in the old testament. The new rests on the old.
Therefore, “but you Bethlehem, Ephrathah, out of you will come forth He...”
And he did.
In any case, though, you miss the point. ONCE the writing is testified to belong to an apostle, it is based on the histories carried by those churches about the validity of the document.
Once it is attested to as Matthew’s, then those are Matthew’s words of the ministry of Christ. I am subject to them, and not to the words of those who want to tell me what they say. After all, it is Matthew who is the apostle, not the commentators.
What you are saying is that if I dig up new artifacts about King Tut, that I am the one who makes them King Tut’s by virtue of digging them up and verifying them.
Bull-looney.
They’re King Tut’s or they’re not. If they are, they INDEPENDENTLY tell me something about King Tut. If they are not, then they don’t tell me anything about that king.
Not dodging but I could be out of the net for the next week. We’ll carry on then. Thanks for the kindly debate.
Yes, his name was carved into the wall.
So the wall belonged to St Peter??? Is that what you are saying??? You saw Peter's wall not his bones or his tomb.
Again, how do you know the Gospel of St. Matthew was written by St. Matthew when the text doesn’t say so?
Now that is plain stupid because Matthew's name is right there in the title of the Gospel. His name is on it. But that tomb under the Vatican doesn't have Peter's name on it nor do those bones that you say you saw.
But vladimir, vladimir, vladimir --- you made an official announcement right here on this forum that you saw Peter's bones in the Vatican. Did you say that with the intention that you would be believed or were you just flapping your wings like you have been doing for some time now???
Did you believe Paul VI's announcement about the bones was accurate??? Apparently you did. So are you now saying that Paul VI's announcement about the bones was wrong????
You failed.
I asked you to post the verse that said Matthew wrote the gospel named after him. You failed to do so.
Thanks for proving my point.
You wrote:
“So the wall belonged to St Peter???”
Is that what I said? You asked a question. I answered it.
“Is that what you are saying???”
Is that what your question asked for? No.
“You saw Peter’s wall not his bones or his tomb.”
Incorrect. I have already stated exactly what I saw.
“Now that is plain stupid because Matthew’s name is right there in the title of the Gospel.”
Incorrect. There never was a title to the gospel except that added by later editors. Matthew’s name does not appear in the text itself in any known mss. as the author of the gospel. That’s just a fact.
“His name is on it.”
Nope. His name is PUT on it. His name is PUT on it by modern editors. The same is done by the guys who stamp “King James” or “NIV” or “NJB” on the spine or cover.
“But that tomb under the Vatican doesn’t have Peter’s name on it nor do those bones that you say you saw.”
Really? So you know nothing about what Ferrua discovered? Figures.
You wrote:
“But vladimir, vladimir, vladimir -— you made an official announcement right here on this forum that you saw Peter’s bones in the Vatican.”
Irrelevant. No matter what I said that cannot be morphed into a statement the pope never made. Yet you have been carping about infallible papal statements that do not exist.
“Did you say that with the intention that you would be believed or were you just flapping your wings like you have been doing for some time now???”
Neither.
“Did you believe Paul VI’s announcement about the bones was accurate???”
Yes.
“Apparently you did. So are you now saying that Paul VI’s announcement about the bones was wrong????”
No.
It is amazing how you twist one thing into another. You so easily confuse one issue with another as if they were the same. No wonder you are confused.
Hey Doc, I thought you might be interested in these links about the Vatican’s Peter Bone scandal. At the center of it during and after WWII is none other than Monsignor Ludwig Kaas. Does that name sound familiar????
Why don't you just admit you paid the admission price, were shown some bones, told they were Peter's, and believed it?
You can believe what you wish but you cannot expect others to honor your beliefs simply because "I saw....with my own eyes."
You wrote:
“Not me, that’s for certain.”
So your body won’t be in your grave? Get real.
“Why don’t you just admit you paid the admission price, were shown some bones, told they were Peter’s, and believed it?”
Because that isn’t why I believe. Again, you have never researched this, never read a book on the subject, never went to the site and are only disagreeing because you want to oppose Catholics at every turn. That’s not a good basis for objecting to something.
“You can believe what you wish but you cannot expect others to honor your beliefs simply because “I saw....with my own eyes.””
That is not what I ever said. Nor do I care whether you believe they are St. Peter’s bones or not. What is clear to me is that you just want to oppose it because Catholics believe it. Your opinion is not only baseless it is irrelevant.
With great respect Mark all but the most conservative of Catholics believe that Roman Catholic Church began with Constantine and that before that we had ‘The Church’ or ‘The Way’. You must remember that initially the Church was an extension of Judaism and then was preached to the gentiles. The Catholic Church may rightly claim Apostolic succession but that does not mean that a Catholic reading or interpretation would be more valid. Most of the New Testament was written for mixed communities of Messianic Jews and new converts. Hebrews was an appeal to a specific Jewish community.
Maybe you would like to retrospectively claim that the Jews were actually Catholics as well!
Mel
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.