Lies

A.D. 110 [/QUOTE]Let's see, that would be, liberally, a full 50 years or so after his legendary martyrdom, would it not?


Let's see. That is hardly "centuries after the fact" (for Bob Ryan's sake, I am quoting you Clint) now is it. Now I am sure this post won't hit the sliding criteria mark either.

"Perhaps you could give us some new insight on the Korean War that no one has yet postulated? That would be a parallel attempt."

I am not postulating. I mearly posted a quote or two that you apparently had never seen. I didn't make the quote up. Read it at face value Clint. You have been shown to be wrong in saying that there is no evidence for several centuries. You could at least admit that.

Blessings

 

well, the old cathlic debate .I find it interesting that the bible is ignored at the whim of the popes. The Word of God is the final authority because it is Gods word, not mans.God moved men and told them what to write.The scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof,correction, and instructionin all rightousness.( 2 tim3)Taht means ...in modern english,that they are good for all teaching.You can use the bible alone to make decisions, find Gods will, see your own sin and find what needs repenting of,use it to correct others whoa re erring..ex-" the bible says do not commit adultery, so yo should not".I do not find, after the apostles,that new instructions are needed.
The apostles had the authority alone to fit the concept of who Jesus is and what his death , burial , and ressurection , means in light of the old testasmaent, and what the new covanant is and is not.Then, starting with timothy, what was taught was passed on to faithful men.
As to the question onthe site of what do we baptists do with teh verses aboput peter and the rock..notice the context was " whoi do people say that I am" and peter saying" thou art the christ the son of the livingGod"..and Jesus said it was not flesh and b lood b ut the Spirit which revealed those things to him.In other words, peter did not tell because of what he saw, but of what God showed him.The rock that his church was to bebuilt on was the revelation of who Jesu is, the Christ, the son of the Living God..the only begottoen son.The bible also calls him the word, whach was with God and was God,and which became flesh.The church is built on the foundation of Jesus Christ, andhim criucified. It is not based on the sacrifice 9of Jesus, then the saying of men that contradict his teachings. It is not based on the revelation of Jesus ansd the messiah, plus the traditions of men. It is built on the foundation Of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Torch

 

Torch:

"I do not find, after the apostles,that new instructions are needed."

Well apparently we don't need the new testament either becuase if you read the context of the verse you post (read a couple verses before it) the OT was all that was available when Timothy was a child. So if the point of the verse is Sola Scriptura then we don't need the New Testament. You and I of course know that is a lie. Have you ever considered God's word through man. Where do you get your knowledge and understanding Torch. Read Jer 3:15 and it will tell you where you should get it. Jesus tells Peter in John 21 to shepherd his sheep. Luke, Paul, and Peter in their writings indicate that there will be shepherds after they are gone (if you want proof I will provide you verses).

"The rock that his church was to bebuilt on was the revelation of who Jesu is, the Christ, the son of the Living God..the only begottoen son."
I agree with this. However it is not in conflict with Peter being the rock for Christ said "You are Peter (meaning Rock) and on this Rock (context is obviously Peter) I will build my Church." Read what it says Torch. Not what you want it to say.

"The church is built on the foundation of Jesus Christ, andhim criucified"
Amen to that. 1 Cor 3:11. But what do you do with Ephesians 2:20 that says that the Church is built on Prophets and Apostles. Easy. There is no conflict between the two, for Christ built his Church through prophets and apostles, he being the cornerstone of the Church.

"It is not based on the revelation of Jesus ansd the messiah, plus the traditions of men.".

Amen again. Gosh we're getting along well this AM. We agree on everything. For God provided us oral tradition so that we don't have to go by traditions of man. Check out 2 Thes 2:15 HOLD FAST to the TRADITIONSSSSS you have recieved. Whether BY WORD OF MOUTH or in epistle from us." Pretty clear to me.
Blessing Torch

Gerald

PS. Torch, could you give me a verse that says that the WORD OF GOD is only equal to scripture? I've been looking for it and haven't found it. I have asked dozens of Protestants and none can find it. Don't misunderstand me, scripture is the WOG. I would just like to see that it is the entire WOG. Ask questions if you still don't understand. Thanks.

 

Hiya Ron -

I have admitted that I accept the Bible on faith. There is no discrepency there. I will go further to say that there are Passages of Scripture that do NOT collaborate. An example is the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 is the Sermon on the Level Place in Luke 6. There are ways around this, to be certain (perhaps it was a plateau, perhaps it was a repeated sermon, etc.), but there is no need to strain at gnats. The importance is in the Message. Other examples are things like were there two blind men healed when Christ exited Jericho (Matthew 20:30) or just one (Mark 10:46)? The question, while fun to postulate, is irrelevant. The point is that Christ healed the blind. I accept this by faith and it is indeed collaborated by all four Gospels.

I do weigh extrabiblical evidence, but again, do not accept it blindly as I do Biblical evidence. For example, if we did not do such, dating the material would be impossible Much of our New Testament dating revolves around the death of Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12:23. If not for external sources, we would not even know his name.

Are you countering my statement or agreeing with it?

Conceded.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thessalonian:
You have been shown to be wrong in saying that there is no evidence for several centuries. You could at least admit that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conceded.

Hot dang! A first. To the point above this. I thought I was countering it. But of course in trying to discern what the original writer meant the words were quite capable of presenting the opposite opinion. Which they did. Of course this happens in Protestant interprutaion of the scriptures every day. They do not have the "mind of Christ" and so can interprut them in tens of thousands of different and conflicting ways. It is in that perspective that I though you were talking about freeing us from our depraved minds. Thus of course context is everything. The traditoins placed in my mind gave an opposite opinion of your words from what you actually intended them to say, based on the traditions in your own mind.


Blessings

 

Clint,

By the way, I am doing another Columbo on ya. You discredit Ignatius by saying his wrinting comes 50 years later. There is a problem in your thinking. First of all Ignatinos who lived while Peter lived was the bishop of a place called Antioch, which is in Syria of all places. He is known to be the third bishop of Antioch, Syria. Tradition also has it that he knew the Apostles, especially John. Now Scripture says that Peter was in Antioch for some time and tradition supports this view having him there for a time as bishop. And it is extremely likely that Ignatius was in Antioch at the time of Peter or at least when he asked "where did Peter go when he left here" someone who knew Peter was able to tell him "Rome my good bishop". Further, Ignatius died in Rome and well could have asked the locals if they had seen Peter there. To which they apparently replied "yes my good bishop". So this gives him a bit more credibility with his words than your Korean war example. There is no evidence that anyone before Calvin refuted the good Bishops words so it seems to be that the refutation is far more in question by your standards, having come over 1500 years later, than the testimony of Ignatious who likely knew Peter and had firsthand knowledge of his whereabouts.


Concession II? I know that is asking alot so you may slide the criteria scale again if you like.

1500 years from now perhaps these words will be read by someone who claims Pope John Paul was never in Rome. Will that be credible if someone wants to believe it?

Blessings.

More on Ignatius right here.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

 

Have I slid a "criterium scale" at some point? I have not seen this.

Again, you are having to fall back on "tradition" when speaking of Ignatius. How do you know his age? How do you know that he was present at the Jerusalem Council (the only mention of Peter in Antioch except for Galatians 2)? The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) occured in 49-50 AD, give or take a year or two. That is 60 years before the writing you cited. Without crunching too many numbers, it is easy to see a flaw in your hypothesis built upon a tradition. To accept this hypothesis and tradition would require a slide in my criterium scale, something I am not willing to do as it is the basis of my argument and, in reality, the initial post of this thread.

There is no mention of Ignatius in the Scriptures and you are basing your theoretical dialogue on unsubstantiated evidence. You may have faith in such, I do not. Therefore, it is unprovable, again, see Hebrews 11:1.

 

In other words.... Nah Nah boo boo. I don't want to believe it. The fact is that you have a belief about tradition that is in conflict with mine. And it is based on far less substantial evidence as has been proven in this thread. Yes you slid the scale once but then acknowledged it. And once again you do alot of handwaving at facts. Ignatius was in Antioch by his own words and also in Rome. Far earlier than your 50 year number. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that he at least knew people who knew Peter. Where did I say he was at the coucncil of Jerusalem? Though he may have been. Thanks for stopping by.

Blessings

 

Clint,

Aren't you a big proponent of Foxes book of Martyr's? Or am I mistaken?

 

You must have me mistaken with another.

It is not a lot of handwaving at "facts" that you presume I am doing. It is a refutation of guesses made at theories based on hearsay that I will not accept. That does not make these guesses facts.

As for conceding a point, that is hardly sliding my criterium scale. That is merely an acknowledgement of a point that you made. You can not enter a debate and win a single point and call that a victory. I hope that you recognize that I am seeking truths on historical facts. I stated earlier, on page one, that if I am in error, I want to know it. That criteria has always been my agenda.

 

BTW, Thessalonian, the quote you give from Ignatius is from his letter to the Romans. Even the link you cite at New Advent admits, "While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius."

 

That, my friend, is a matter of perspective.

I will add, though, on a personal note, that your debating techniques have improved quite a bit sice you first arrived here. It takes a lot longer to get you frustrated to where you fly off the handle (that's a little joke, Thessalonian).

 

I am aware. You are aware that I provided a quote from Irenaus as well which we have ignored for the time being. Further the evidence is far stronger that Peter was in Rome than he wasn't (silence is defening). Something that cannot be found by any Christian writer until the days of Calvin, and the vast majority of Baptists believe it. While that he was in Rome has many proponents. If you can find me someone before Calvin that claims Peter was not in Rome it would be intersting.

 

That, my friend, is a matter of perspective. </font>[/QUOTE]Have a sense of humor Clint. I put a big grinny in so it wouldn't damage your ego too much.

WHOSE FLYING OFF THE HANDLE!!!!!!

God bless.

 

Again, one can not prove a negative. As for Baptists believing it, I don't have any stats, but people believe untruths, Mike's point in his initial post, so I suppose this statementmay contain some truth. The old adage "don't believe everything you hear and half of what you read" (or something to that effect) is quite prevelant here. Truth by majority is not a valid position.

Plato wrote about many things and is considered a great historian. Do you, however, believe in Atlantis?

 

Clint, here is some evidence for your consideration.

link to my source

I have copied some of the relevant info below for your convience.

Ancient Evidence

From the 1st century an apocryphal work called the Ascension of Isaiah has come down to us; and this is probably the FIRST AND EARLIEST document that attests to the martyrdom of Peter IN ROME. In a passage (Chap. 4:2f) we read the following prediction:

...then will arise Beliar, the great prince, the king of this world, who has ruled it since its origin; and he shall descend from his firmament in HUMAN FORM, king of wickedness, MURDERER OF HIS MOTHER, who himself is king of this world; and he will persecute the PLANT which the 12 apostles of the Beloved shall have planted; ONE OF THE 12 WILL BE DELIVERED INTO HIS HANDS.

This is a clear reference to Emperor Nero who murdered his mother Agrippina in 59 A.D., and put Peter to death in February of 68 A.D. It cannot refer to Paul -- he was beheaded in January of 67 A.D. by Helius, one the prefects who was left in charge of Rome while Nero was away in Greece entertaining the fawning citizens of this vassal province.

The NEXT REFERENCE, in order of time, is the Epistle of Clement to James. Although many historians have placed this letter in the last ten years of the 1st century, there are some objections to this. The largest objection, of course, is that James could not have possibly been alive at that late a date. All indications are that James was killed during the interfactional warfare that occurred in Jerusalem just prior to the Roman destruction of the city in 70 A.D. Also, there is an abundance of material to show that Peter ordained Clement TO REPLACE LINUS as overseer of the Roman Church after the latter's martyrdom in 67 A.D. The list of bishops of Rome in the Ante-Nicene Fathers show that Clement was an overseer from 68-71 A.D.

Evidently, his first item of business as overseer was to inform James of Peter's death:

Clement to James, who rules [oversees] Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently founded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always....He himself [Peter], by reason of his immense love towards men, HAVING COME AS FAR AS ROME, clearly and publicly testifying, in opposition to the wicked one who withstood him, that there is to be a good King over all the world, while saving men by his God-inspired doctrine, HIMSELF, BY VIOLENCE, EXCHANGED THIS PRESENT EXISTENCE FOR LIFE. -- Epistle of Clement to James, "Ante-Nicene Fathers." Translated by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. Vol. VIII. New York. 1926. P. 218.

A cryptic reference to the death of Peter occurs in the Book of John in the Bible which, most authorities believe, was written in the last decade of the first century. Here, in verses 18 and 19 of chapter 21, we read:

"I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old YOU WILL STRETCH OUT YOUR HANDS, and someone else will dress you and lead you WHERE YOU DO NOT WANT TO GO." Jesus said this to indicate THE KIND OF DEATH by which Peter would glorify God.

The stretching out of the hands refers to Peter's crucifixion in his old age; however, the passage does not indicate WHERE this crucifixion was to take place.

In the first few years of the 2nd century an Ebionite document, called The Preaching of Peter, was written. Its time-frame is indicated by the fact that the Gnostic Heracleon used it in his writings during the time of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 A.D.). According to John Ignatius Dollinger, The Preaching of Peter brings "St. Peter and St. Paul together AT ROME, and divides the discourses and utterances which took place there between the two...it is notoriously founded on the UNIVERSALLY ADMITTED FACT of St. Peter having laboured AT ROME."

It is INCONCEIVABLE to think that such a document (claiming acceptance as a genuine product of the apostolic age) would have presented a groundless fable about the presence of Peter at Rome AT A TIME WHEN MANY WHO HAD SEEN THE APOSTLE MUST HAVE STILL BEEN ALIVE!

At this same time (circa 107 A.D.) Ignatius, one of the early church fathers, says in his epistle to the ROMAN CHURCH: "I do not, LIKE PETER AND PAUL, issue commandments unto you" -- an oblique reference to Peter's residence in Rome.

Thomas Lewin, in The Life and Epistle of St. Paul, mentions that a work entitled Praedicatio Pauli -- ascribed to the second century -- tells of PETER and Paul meeting AT ROME (Vol. 2. London. 1874).

The events which led up to the death of Peter are described at length in a work called the Acts of Peter, which was in circulation at Rome approximately 85 years after the apostle's death. Once again, those who would have read this work would have been second-generation Christians, whose parents would remember the places and personalities concerned.

There is NO HISTORICAL RECORD that this narrative was ever challenged on the grounds of Peter's death in Rome. Therefore, a thread of truth must be enshrined in this Acts of Peter that link together the events described. Even the SPIRIT of the apostle Peter breaks through the verbose and often sugary language of the author's presentation.

Unger's Bible Dictionary attests to the ANTIQUITY of the universal belief that Peter died in Rome:

In the 2nd century Dionysius of Corinth, in the epistle to Soter Bishop of Rome, states, as a FACT UNIVERSALLY KNOWN and accounting for the intimate relations between Corinth and Rome, that Peter and Paul BOTH TAUGHT IN ITALY, and suffered martyrdom ABOUT the same time. In short, the churches most nearly connected with Rome and THOSE LEAST AFFECTED BY ITS INFLUENCE, which was as yet but inconsiderable in the east, CONCUR in the statement that Peter was a joint founder of that church [Rome], and SUFFERED DEATH IN THAT CITY.

 

LOL

 

"Again, one can not prove a negative.".

In other words you cannot produce such a statement. But isn't such abscence evidence in the positive, especially when there are countless statements in the positive from a very early date. I know of know one who would claim that Pope Piux X did not reside in Rome. I know of much historical evidence, some written long after he was there, that he was. Should we dismiss it all because noone has ever said that Piux X did not live in Rome or because sometime later someone says Pius X did not live in Rome? Seems like the historical revisionists could have a heyday by your theories of historical "fact" (and do). That they are johnny come much later revisionists of what has always been held as true by any credible evidence calls it in to question. Seems rather odd.