Nipate
Forum => Controversial => Topic started by: vooke on May 18, 2015, 01:26:29 PM
-
Nuff Sed,
Is it familiar?
(http://image1.findagrave.com/photos/2009/204/39602243_124848126947.jpg)
Ellen G. White abominable image for Asherah, the phallic pillar of Baal, rises defiantly erect between two judiciously-placed, bewhiskered shrubby balls.
An older image
(http://www.zbawienie.com/images/EGWEstatePictures-1191.JPG)
And a closer shot
(http://libertytothecaptives.net/ellen_g_white-freemasonry.jpg)
Of course there is a ready excuse (http://drc.whiteestate.org/createpdf.php?emailid=41680) for the beautiful balls and some serious manhood
-
No Comment
(http://www.obeliskseven.com/portals/0/NewFolderDec2010/Vatican%20obelisk%20with%20Pope%20mass%20.jpg)
(http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/piazza.jpg)
Here you see a view of the piazza or plaza at the Vatican, also known as St. Peter's square. The papal palace is on the right edge of the photo. The large eight-rayed sun wheel design, symbolic of Ishtar, is immediately noticeable. Look closely in the center of the wheel. What you see there is an obelisk, a genuine Egyptian obelisk shipped from Heliopolis to Rome by the Roman emperor Caligula. The obelisk is, of course, a phallic symbol,* but it also was used in sun worship. Click on the image to view a larger version of the same image.
* It is claimed that the word 'obelisk' literally means 'Baal's shaft' or 'Baal's organ of reproduction'. Source: Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, by Dr. Cathy Burns, pg. 341.
-
lol, Omollo, we are not Taliban. :D I'am still mad at them for destroying the maginificent Bamiyan Buddhas overlooking Afghan plains :( We don't destroy historically significant sites or monuments just because they are pagan in origin. We understand that in reality they are just stone shaped by human hands and no more. Historically, they are a snapshot of a culture long dead. As I understand it, the church has preserved a lot of history in art and architecture over the centuries and even some old pagan temples were converted to churches after the old religions died. For those worried, the old religions of rome died a long time ago, "the obelisk" is no more religiously significant than the parthenon, though it is an important monument. :)
-
Bella
I don't see any language of compromise in the commandments below, do you? This is not from the Koran but the Bible. I may not agree with the Taliban but I had no sympathy for the idolatry that that sanamu in Afghanistan represented. I am sure if a Devil Worshipper set up a monument in Nairobi visible 24/7 from all directions, the reaction by Christians in Kenya would be not so dissimilar to that of the Taliban. The majority tend to dictate.
Note that the Vatican sanamu does not pre-exist the Church. On the contrary the Church acquired it and went ahead to give it greater prominence. Does your church tolerate Baal?
You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works; but you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars. Exodus 23:24
But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images Exodus 34:13
You shall not make idols for yourselves; neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for yourselves; nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to it; for I am the Lord your God Leviticus 26:1
But thus you shall deal with them: you shall destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars Deut 7:5
And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place Deut 12: 3-4
lol, Omollo, we are not Taliban. :D I'am still mad at them for destroying the maginificent Bamiyan Buddhas overlooking Afghan plains :( We don't destroy historically significant sites or monuments just because they are pagan in origin. We understand that in reality they are just stone shaped by human hands and no more. Historically, they are a snapshot of a culture long dead. As I understand it, the church has preserved a lot of history in art and architecture over the centuries and even some old pagan temples were converted to churches after the old religions died. For those worried, the old religions of rome died a long time ago, "the obelisk" is no more religiously significant than the parthenon, though it is an important monument. :)
-
Actually Omollo, it very much pre-exists the church. Please read this from this (got it in another discussion forum over this same topic): https://books.google.co.ke/books/about/The_Incredible_Book_of_Vatican_Facts_and.html?id=EXvWAAAAMAAJ&hl=en
What is the origin of the Egyptian needle in St. Peter's Square?
The mightiest Egyptian obelisk in the world stands in St. Peter's Square, but until a relatively short time ago, a riddle surrounded the great needle. When it was erected in the center of a Rome arena where gladiators used to fight and charioteers raced, Emperor Caligula (whose reign ended in A.D. 41) had a Latin dedication to his mother (Agripina) engraved at the base of the obelisk. Then, almost 1,500 years later, Pope Sixtus V ordered the 320 ton monolith lugged from the ancient arena to its present position in St. Peter's Square.
But where did the Egyptian needle come from? It bore no hieroglyphics or words of any kind anywhere, so it remained a mystery—until this century, when Professor Filippo Magi, an archeologist, began to wonder about the Latin inscription and why it had been carved on an indented rectangle and not directly on the surface of the obelisk. Then he looked more closely as the slanting rays of the sun hit in such a way as to reveal innumerable little holes, about a quarter of an inch deep, scattered among the Latin words. Could they possibly be what remained of holes that once held the teeth of bronze letters of a previous inscription, letters that Caligula ordered removed to make room for Latin words? Could the archeologist reconstruct the ancient letters just from the positions of the holes? With hundreds of plastic letters made to size, Professor Magi went to work—both guessing and using the principles of cryptography—to solve the puzzle. His detective work paid off. When he broke the riddle and the original inscription could be read, it revealed that the obelisk had been put up in Heliopolis by Caius Cornelius Gallus, a Roman prefect to Egypt who had erected many such monuments to his own glory before he fell into disfavor and committed suicide in 27 B.C.
It is was never an idol created for worship. Just a monument by an ancient politician to mark his "achievements". Moreover, a cross stands above it, to show the triumph of christianity over ancient Rome. I also understand St. Peter (and many other christians) was martyred near it, as it was in the centre of an arena where such killings took place, which is why the Pope had it moved to the site of st. Peters burrial.
The ancient Israelites lived in very different times. I dont recall any of the apostles bothering with ancient idols, except to tell christians the gods worshipped were non-existent. :) No, I wouldnt be one of the Nairobians asking that a 1,500 year old statue be taken down. I'd probably be in a protest infront of one preventing those trying to take it down, actually. :D
-
May be I was a bit inaccurate in my formulation and thus must bear full responsibility for your response. While the existence of the sanamu predates the church, the decision and act of relocating it to The Vatican does not.
I also disagree that it is not a religious symbol. Many if not ALL these monuments have been put up amid open and poorly disguised secret religious rituals. The one in Times Square NY, was marked by a full fledged Masonic match in full openness.
As for Peter having been killed in Rome, I disagree on the grounds that I even doubt he ever stepped in that city: Has St. Peter ever been in Rome?
by Otto Zwierlein, Bonn (http://www.philologie.uni-bonn.de/philologie/personal/zwierlein/st_peter_in_rome.pdf)
Actually Omollo, it very much pre-exists the church. Please read this from this (got it in another discussion forum over this same topic): https://books.google.co.ke/books/about/The_Incredible_Book_of_Vatican_Facts_and.html?id=EXvWAAAAMAAJ&hl=en
What is the origin of the Egyptian needle in St. Peter's Square?
The mightiest Egyptian obelisk in the world stands in St. Peter's Square, but until a relatively short time ago, a riddle surrounded the great needle. When it was erected in the center of a Rome arena where gladiators used to fight and charioteers raced, Emperor Caligula (whose reign ended in A.D. 41) had a Latin dedication to his mother (Agripina) engraved at the base of the obelisk. Then, almost 1,500 years later, Pope Sixtus V ordered the 320 ton monolith lugged from the ancient arena to its present position in St. Peter's Square.
It is was never an idol created for worship.
To understand why the obelisk is so important to masons one has to understand the Masonic version of Egyptian mythology behind their rituals.
Osiris was a king of Egypt who married his sister Isis. His brother ‘Set’ wished to usurp the throne and so plotted his death. He tricked Osiris into climbing into a golden chest. As soon as he was inside, Set nailed down the lid and flung the chest into the Nile. It was carried off to Byblos in Syria where it came to rest against a small Tamarisk tree or Acasia tree, with the dead Osiris still inside. Isis found out what Set had done to Osiris, so she set off to find her husband.
A vision led her to Byblos, where she recovered his body and took it back to Egypt. Alas! Set stole it and tore it into fourteen pieces, which he scattered throughout Egypt to prevent Osiris coming to life again. Isis recovered all but one of the pieces - the penis - and gave Osiris a fit burial. Their son, Horus, avenged him by slaying Set.
-
Omollo, I think you'll find this site informative as well, it also tells the story of the obelisk, I reproduce it here in whole: You were right in that, it appears it was more than just an ancient non-religious monument of politicians as I wrote in the last post. Apparently it predated ancient Rome itself by 3,000 years and is actually Egyptian in origin and not Roman. It was originally a tribute to the Egyptian Sungod. :) However, its connection to the first persecutions, particularly that of St. Peter, explains its symbolic significance to the church, the cross on top and the inscription on its base signifying victory of Christ/christianity over Rome.
http://www.divinarivelazione.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=556&Itemid=829&lang=en
(http://www.divinarivelazione.org/images/articles/itinerari/linguaggio-fede/obelisk02.jpg)
When pilgrims meet in St. Peter’s square they usually arrange to: “Meet under the obelisk!”. This great Egyptian monument is really a sundial which is delineated by the colonnade designed by Gianlorenzo Bernini from 1956 to 1667. The obelisk is a great monolithic monument which is made of red granite and stands more than 25 meters high! If the Obelisk could speak, it would tell us 3000 years of history, which started with the Pharaoh Nencoreo (maybe Amenemhet II, 1985-1929 B. C.) who erected it in Heipolis (Egypt) in honour of the Sun God as a thanksgiving for having recovered his sight.
The length of the Obelisk was reduced and it was transported by Cornelio Gallo, Egypt’s first prefect, to the Julian Forum of Alexandria. In 40 A. D the Emperor Caligula ordered the transfer of the obelisk to Rome and it was transported in a ship full of lentils to protect it during the journey. Once in Rome, the obelisk was positioned in the central “spine” of the circus that a few years later became known as “Nero’s Circus”.
On the night between the 18th and 19th July 64 A.D a great fire started in Rome that destroyed the city for nine consecutive days. In order to deflect attention away from himself, the Emperor Nero attributed the blame for the starting the fire to the Christians and so started 300 years of Christian persecution.
Tacitus wrote that if the obelisk could speak it would testify to “the great number of Christians that died” in Nero’s circus. The Christian executions were really brutal: “covered by feline skin, they perished by being torn by dogs, were crucified or burnt alive to serve as nocturnal illuminations”. This is how the first great persecution of the Christians by the Roman Empire started.
It was during these terrible persecutions that the Apostle, Peter, was crucified upside down. Certainly, the obelisk would have witnessed the recovery of St Peter’s martyred body by those early Christians who, with immense love, buried it in the bare earth near the Vatican Necropolis.
With the passage of time, the number of burials in the Necropolis grew. In the II Century a simple edifice known as the “Trophy of Gaius” was erected in order to preserve the location of St Peter’s tomb. In the base of the “Trophy of Gaius” is a manhole that corresponds exactly with the location of St Peter’s tomb. Within the shadow of the obelisk we can hear the words of the learned Roman Priest, Gaius, who, at the time of Pope Zefirino (199-217), wrote to the heretic Proclus defending the location of St Peter and St Paul’s tombs in Rome, saying: "And I can show the trophies of the Apostles. For if you choose to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Road, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church“.
Some years later, a perpendicular wall, which became known as the “Graffiti Wall”, was constructed on the north side of the Trophy of Gaius. It was on this very wall that the early Christians inscribed their invocations to St Peter, the Apostle. During the archaeological excavations authorised by Pope Pius XII in 1941, the Greek inscriptions were deciphered by epigraphist, Margherita Guarducci, who found the words “Petrus Eni”, Peter is here!
The obelisk could still tell us how the Emperor Constantine sought to protect St Peter’s tomb. In fact he buried the entire ancient Necropolis in order to make an artificial surface on the Vatican hillside upon which to construct the Basilica. St Peter’s tomb was the fulcrum around which the beautiful Constantinian Basilica was constructed. This Basilica remained in place, in its original form, right up to the end of the XV century.
On the 18th April 1506 the Pope Julius II blessed the first stone of the new St Peter’s basilica. It is this basilica that we all recognize today. It took over 150 years to build this beautiful Basilica!
In 1586 Pope Sixtus V commissioned the repositioning of the obelisk in the central location in St Peter’s square and also authorized that a fragment of Jesus’ Holy Cross be placed in a cross on its summit. The Latin inscription at the base of the obelisk reads: “Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!”, Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ rules!
(http://www.divinarivelazione.org/images/articles/itinerari/linguaggio-fede/obelisk01.jpg)
-
May be I was a bit inaccurate in my formulation and thus must bear full responsibility for your response. While the existence of the sanamu predates the church, the decision and act of relocating it to The Vatican does not.
I also disagree that it is not a religious symbol. Many if not ALL these monuments have been put up amid open and poorly disguised secret religious rituals. The one in Times Square NY, was marked by a full fledged Masonic match in full openness.
As for Peter having been killed in Rome, I disagree on the grounds that I even doubt he ever stepped in that city: Has St. Peter ever been in Rome?
by Otto Zwierlein, Bonn (http://www.philologie.uni-bonn.de/philologie/personal/zwierlein/st_peter_in_rome.pdf)
It is was never an idol created for worship.
To understand why the obelisk is so important to masons one has to understand the Masonic version of Egyptian mythology behind their rituals.
Osiris was a king of Egypt who married his sister Isis. His brother ‘Set’ wished to usurp the throne and so plotted his death. He tricked Osiris into climbing into a golden chest. As soon as he was inside, Set nailed down the lid and flung the chest into the Nile. It was carried off to Byblos in Syria where it came to rest against a small Tamarisk tree or Acasia tree, with the dead Osiris still inside. Isis found out what Set had done to Osiris, so she set off to find her husband.
A vision led her to Byblos, where she recovered his body and took it back to Egypt. Alas! Set stole it and tore it into fourteen pieces, which he scattered throughout Egypt to prevent Osiris coming to life again. Isis recovered all but one of the pieces - the penis - and gave Osiris a fit burial. Their son, Horus, avenged him by slaying Set.
Omollo, whether or not Peter was in Rome, (I certainly believe per testimony of ancient christians who would know, that he was) my point is that the catholic church believes he was and that we have his bones underneath the altar of St. Peters basilica, that the obelisk's presence at the piazza is connected to this belief, and it is also a fact that many christians were martyred by Nero before it, whether Peter was among them or not, so that its being a symbol of Roman persecution of christianity is retained. Hence the symbolic statement of the cross and the inscription of Christ conquers retains its meaning and explains why it stands there, thats what I was explaining. I understood your first concerns to be about why a pagan idol of old would stand infront of a church.
-
vooke,
If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point. Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection.
-
Omollo, whether or not Peter was in Rome, my point is that the catholic church believes he was and that we have his bones underneath the altar of St. Peters basilica, that the obelisk is connected to this belief, and it is also a fact that many christians were martyred by Nero before it, whether Peter was among them or not. Hence the symbolic statement of the cross and the inscription of Christ conquers retains its meaning and explains why it stands there. I understood your first concerns to be about why a pagan idol of old would stand infront of a church.
Bella
The fact that the basis for having the pagan monument in The Vatican is proven false by every serious scholar means there is another (hidden) reason for its prominent presence. There is a school of thought that says it is The Devil's most clever tactic of undermining Christianity. By some ingenuity The Devil managed to place the Symbol of paganism in the heart of The Church and thus rendered it Godless, devoid of the Glory of God and suitable for destruction just like the Temple of Jerusalem.
I have to say I have a lot of sympathy for that view considering nowhere in the Bible does God let down on his abhorrence of Baal and paganism. It is one of the few if not only occasion one is freed from all the demands of the 6th Commandment (Thou shalt not Kill) and in fact one can get in to sin for not doing so.
-
Omollo, whether or not Peter was in Rome, my point is that the catholic church believes he was and that we have his bones underneath the altar of St. Peters basilica, that the obelisk is connected to this belief, and it is also a fact that many christians were martyred by Nero before it, whether Peter was among them or not. Hence the symbolic statement of the cross and the inscription of Christ conquers retains its meaning and explains why it stands there. I understood your first concerns to be about why a pagan idol of old would stand infront of a church.
Bella
The fact that the basis for having the pagan monument in The Vatican is proven false by every serious scholar means there is another (hidden) reason for its prominent presence. There is a school of thought that says it is The Devil's most clever tactic of undermining Christianity. By some ingenuity The Devil managed to place the Symbol of paganism in the heart of The Church and thus rendered it Godless, devoid of the Glory of God and suitable for destruction just like the Temple of Jerusalem.
I have to say I have a lot of sympathy for that view considering nowhere in the Bible does God let down on his abhorrence of Baal and paganism. It is one of the few if not only occasion one is freed from all the demands of the 6th Commandment (Thou shalt not Kill) and in fact one can get in to sin for not doing so.
Omollo,
I'm afraid its just not true that serious scholars claim Peter did not go to Rome at all. Please look at the Encyclopedia Britannica to see this: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/453832/Saint-Peter-the-Apostle/5632/Tradition-of-Peter-in-Rome
As you can see there, christians as early as the 1st century believed that Peter had been martyred in Rome. If he had been in fact killed/burried elsewhere, you can rest assured christians from that place would have had something to say to the Roman christians about their claims. :)
I dont doubt st Peter is burried underneath the altar in st Peter's Basilica, the excavation in the early 20th century of the site found a man from the same period fitting the same description tradition has of st Peter, along with an ancient Greek inscription marking his grave: Peter is here, the article I cited referred to. There is a whole book that was written on that excavation process, I believe it is called: The Bones of St. Peter, and gives that information in more detail.
-
Sorry can't access the article. I am outside the area where I can freely access it - if you get my meaning.
Tradition of Peter in Rome
The problems surrounding the residence, martyrdom, and burial of Peter are among the most complicated of all those encountered in the study of the New Testament and the early church. The absence of any reference in Acts or Romans to a residence of Peter in Rome gives pause but is not conclusive. If Peter did write 1 Peter, the mention of “Babylon” in 5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the capital city. If Peter was not the author of the first epistle that bears his name, the presence ... (100 of 4,730 words)
Omollo,
I'm afraid its just not true that serious scholars claim Peter did not go to Rome at all. Please look at the Encyclopedia Britannica to see this: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/453832/Saint-Peter-the-Apostle/5632/Tradition-of-Peter-in-Rome
As you can see there, christians as early as the 1st century believed that Peter had been martyred in Rome. If he had been in fact killed/burried elsewhere, you can rest assured christians from that place would have had something to say to the Roman christians about their claims. :)
I dont doubt st Peter is burried underneath the altar in st Peter's Basilica, the excavation in the early 20th century of the site found a man from the same period fitting the same description tradition has of st Peter, along with an ancient Greek inscription marking his grave: Peter is here, the article I cited referred to. There is a whole book that was written on that excavation process, I believe it is called: The Bones of St. Peter, and gives that information in more detail.
[/quote]
-
Its fairly long, but I'll try to reproduce it. :)
-
The problems surrounding the residence, martyrdom, and burial of Peter are among the most complicated of all those encountered in the study of the New Testament and the early church. The absence of any reference in Acts or Romans to a residence of Peter in Rome gives pause but is not conclusive. If Peter did write 1 Peter, the mention of “Babylon” in 5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the capital city. If Peter was not the author of the first epistle that bears his name, the presence of this cryptic reference witnesses at least to a tradition of the late 1st or early 2nd century. “Babylon” is a cryptic term indicating Rome, and it is the understanding utilized in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 6 and in the works of various Jewish seers.
It may be said that by the end of the 1st century there existed a tradition that Peter had lived in Rome. Further early evidence for the tradition is found in the Letter to the Romans by Ignatius, the early 2nd-century bishop of Antioch. It is probable that the tradition of a 25-year episcopate of Peter in Rome is not earlier than the beginning or the middle of the 3rd century. The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century.
Words of John 21:18, 19 clearly allude to the death of Peter and are cast into the literary form of prophecy. The author of this chapter is aware of a tradition concerning the martyrdom of Peter when the Apostle was an old man. And there is a possible reference here to crucifixion as the manner of his death. But as to when or where the death took place there is not so much as a hint.
The strongest evidence to support the thesis that Peter was martyred in Rome is to be found in the Letter to the Corinthians (c. ad 96; 5:1–6:4) of Clement of Rome:
Peter, who by reason of wicked jealousy, not only once or twice but frequently endured suffering and thus, bearing his witness, went to the glorious place which he merited (5:4). . . . To these men [Peter and Paul] who lived such holy lives there was joined a great multitude of the elect who by reason of rivalry were victims of many outrages and tortures and who became outstanding examples among us (6:1).
These sources, plus the suggestions and implications of later works, combine to lead many scholars to accept Rome as the location of the martyrdom and the reign of Nero as the time.
As part of the general question of Peter’s residence and martyrdom in Rome, debated since the appearance of the Defensor pacis of Marsilius of Padua (c. 1275–c. 1342), the particular question of where Peter was buried has been argued. There is not the slightest hint at a solution in the New Testament. The earliest evidence (c. ad 200) is found in a fragment of a work by Gaius (or Caius) witnessing to a tradition at least a generation earlier (c. ad 165) that the “trophy” (i.e., tropaion, or monument) of Peter was located at the Vatican. Though difficult to interpret, the use of the word trophy indicates that in this period the Vatican area was associated with either the tomb of the Apostle or simply a monument erected in the area of Peter’s victory (i.e., his martyrdom).
Some scholars find support for a tradition that the Apostle was buried “Ad Catacumbas” (“at the catacombs” of San Sebastiano) on the Via Appia in an inscription of Damasus (pope, 366–384), composed in such ambiguous terms that it was certain to foster such misinterpretations as are found in the letter of Gregory the Great to Empress Constantina and the notice of Cornelius in the Liber Pontificalis. Apart from the aforementioned, later literary tradition is unanimous in indicating the Vatican Hill as the place of burial. See Peristephanon, XII, of Prudentius, various notices in the Liber Pontificalis, and The Salzburg Itinerary. Liturgical sources such as the Depositio Martyrum, Martyrologium Hieronymianum, though interesting, add nothing to the literary evidence.
Excavations were begun in the late 19th century in order to substantiate the theory that the burial of Peter and Paul was “Ad Catacumbas.” After a half century of investigation, it now seems reasonable to concede that a cult of the Apostles existed there about ad 260, though Christian influence may have been exerted as early as ad 200. None of the excavations, however, in all of the areas indicated at various times as the resting place of the apostolic relics, have produced any evidence whatsoever that the bodies of Peter and Paul were either buried there originally or brought there at a later time after earlier burials elsewhere.
In the early 4th century, the emperor Constantine (d. ad 337) with considerable difficulty erected a basilica on the Vatican Hill. The difficulty of the task, combined with the comparative ease with which this great church might have been built on level ground only a slight distance to the south, may support the contention that the Emperor was convinced that the relics of Peter rested beneath the small Aedicula (shrine for a small statue) over which he had erected the basilica. The task before the excavators was to determine whether or not the belief of Constantine accorded with the facts or was based merely upon a misunderstanding.
The excavation of this site, which lies far beneath the high altar of the present Church of St. Peter, was begun in 1939. The problems encountered in excavation and interpretation of what has been discovered are extremely complex. There are some scholars who are convinced that a box found in one of the fairly late sidewalls of the Aedicula contains fragments of the remains of the Apostle, fragments which at an earlier time may have rested in the earth beneath the Aedicula. Others are most definitely not convinced. If a grave of the Apostle did exist in the area of the base of the Aedicula, nothing identifiable of that grave remains today. Furthermore, the remains discovered in the box that until comparatively recently rested in the sidewall do not lead necessarily to a more positive conclusion. Archaeological investigation has not solved with any great degree of certainty the question of the location of the tomb of Peter. If it was not in the area of the Aedicula, perhaps the grave rested elsewhere in the immediate vicinity, or perhaps the body was never recovered for burial at all.
Omollo, are you in a dangerous country that monitors information or something?
Anyway, as the britannica shows there are scholars on both sides of the issue. As for me, I always defer to the testimony of early christians on questions of what is authentic christian tradition. :) I believe the man under the altar in st Peters, though this is not part of official dogma, but I believe it is st Peter because Christians believed it and the bones found there match the belief, that's enough for me! :D This wiki also has some more info on the excavations and early christian beliefs and scholarly disputes on the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter%27s_tomb O my word, there is a free online version of 'The Bones of St. Peter: The First Full Account of the Search for the Apostle's Body": http://stpetersbasilica.info/Necropolis/JW/TheBonesofStPeter-1.htm#contents
-
Bella
These days which country doesn't? In the past they dependent on secret denunciations to start bugging phones and sending men in overcoats.... these days they still do that but again have hired virtually everybody to spy for them. Your ISP, Your Grocer (Credit Card electronic receipts, Your library, not to mention the cellphone company.
I have free access when I am within the institute I am attached to.
That said, the Britannica article has underwhelmed me. It is a mixture of fact and fiction with clear symmetry. It makes declarations. The only "proof" that the bones found in Rome belong to Peter appears to be some inscription saying "Peter is here". Now for that to be accepted dozens of tests would have to be carried out on the bones and the inscription to rule out mischief. The article I cited says the following (I have numbered for ease. He starts by examining the evidence in the New statement: "Peter in Rome” and the New Testament:
1. Rome is not mentioned in connection with Peter in the New Testament anywhere.
2. Paul’s epistle to the Romans and the end of Acts (ca. 100 AD) allow the conclusion that neither of
the authors knew anything about a presumed stay of Peter in the city;
3. what is more, Romans 15:20 and 2Cor 10:16 actually exclude such a possibility (Zw. 2013, 3).
4. When Peter and Paul divided among themselves the areas of their missionary activities (Gal. 2:7), Paul was charged
with evangelizing the uncircumcised heathens, and Peter the circumcised Jews (in Palestine).
5. His last appearance in the NT shows him on a temporary visit to Antioch (Gal. 2:11), otherwise his activities are restricted to Palestine.
6. In Jerusalem he plays an important role next to the Lord’s brother Jacob, from where the mission of the “diaspora” is organized.
7. Around the year 50 or 54 at the latest (cf. 1Cor 9,5) we lose track of the apostle Peter in the Bible.
8. Exegetes who interpret the passage in John 21:18–19 as an anticipatory reference to Peter’s crucifixion have to take into account the fact that the (spurious) additional chapter 21 of the gospel of John is attested at the earliest around 180/185 (in Irenaeus) and is not likely to have been written before 160. The scene is lake Tiberias, Rome is not mentioned at all.
I shall attached the Pdf version in full
Omollo, are you in a dangerous country that monitors information or something?
Anyway, as the britannica shows there are scholars on both sides of the issue. As for me, I always defer to the testimony of early christians on questions of what is authentic christian tradition. :) I believe the man under the altar in st Peters, though this is not part of official dogma, but I believe it is st Peter because Christians believed it and the bones found there match the belief, that's enough for me! :D This wiki also has some more info on the excavations and early christian beliefs and scholarly disputes on the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter%27s_tomb
[pdf]http://www.philologie.uni-bonn.de/philologie/personal/zwierlein/st_peter_in_rome.pdf[/pdf]
-
Thanks Omollo, I will look at the pdf and get back. I dont think you saw my addition to the earlier post, so I'll just repeat that the book accounting the excavation process I reffered to earlier is actually freely available online: http://stpetersbasilica.info/Necropolis/JW/TheBonesofStPeter-5.htm#Peter. Now, lets take a look at that article...
-
Omollo, like you I must claim underwhelment :D
First of all, having looked about, it appears this scholar does not at actually represent a consensus, as may appear, and that the volume he has written (in German) of which he provided the English summary that you have cited, is controversial and has been answered by other scholars, but in German, which I cannot access.
However, it appears to me his basic argument is that the Epistle/book of 1st Peter is "fictitious" and that the Epistle dates not from the 1st century but from the 2nd century long after Peter's death (this is just stated as established fact, no evidence in sight anywhere in the article, however) and then an emphatic interpretation of the reference to "Babylon" in that Epistle (again, simply stated as fact, evidence onge!) that does not match any of the uses of the term among Christians and Jews of the 1st/2nd century who per most scholars, as I understand it, used it to refer to the actual Rome...the empire/capital of the empire.
The rest is simply that (a) st. Ignatius' reference to Peter and Paul having special authority over the Roman church (110 AD) means something other than what has been taken traditionally to be the meaning (that Ignatius believed that Peter and Paul had a special relationship to the church located in Rome) or that (b) st Clement's letter (from 96/7 AD) again means something else. He admits to a christian tradition of the death of Peter by the Roman church but dates it to 150/160 AD. Of course, he does not bother to explain what would motivate the christians of this particular church to just invent such a tradition from whole clothe, and why the Palestinian churches (Jerusalem and Antich) where this author claims Peter lived and died and never left, would allow this rubbish without objection. Were they not aware of the death and burial of their own bishop and beloved apostle? Even granting that the tradition is first recorded in 150 and accepting his dismissal of 1st Peter, Clement and Igatius, that is still early enough that the churches knew Bishops/leaders who had known the apostles or the earliest apostolic fathers. That others would not have said, no, st Peter is burried at his church in Antioch/Jerusalem, just seems an amazing claim to make to me. :D
Everything else comes down to this: Its not written in the Bible (this after disparaging 1st Peter as fictitious and then giving an interpretation of Babylon that is unique and doesnt follow the use of the term among the Jews and christians of that era). Well, anyone who has read the New Testament knows that it doesnt mention all/detailed accounts of the lives of the apostles, apart from st Paul whom Acts follows extensively. From the New Testament, you can't know much of how most of the apostles lived and died in the 1st century after Jesus had left. That doesnt mean they vanished from the earth and didnt do anything else, live or die, its just not something that was recorded in the letters that were to form the canon of the new testament. However, a tradition of early christianity does exist and cannot be simply wished away. Neither is it contradicted by other christians, so it appears there is no "smoking gun" here at all. Just an alternative view of history, IMO. And a view that to me, simply doesnt make sense of all the evidence but is entirely a big old argument from silence. :D
-
vooke,
If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point. Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection.
Termie,
I think you hate me with a passion. Nuff Sed draws my attention to three phallics (http://www.nipate.org/index.php?topic=2004.0)in her signature and aks me if they remind me of anything. I swear they did just that I couldn't figure what. Then it all came back, a hard on and two balls erected(pun) on Ellen Gould White grave. She ordered it soon after her hubby's death.
I believe it is very impolite to ignore a question/challenge.
-
kadame,
I doubt Peter has ever been to Rome. Could you VERY briefly adduce your strongest and earliest evidence that he did?
-
kadame,
I doubt Peter has ever been to Rome. Could you VERY briefly adduce your strongest and earliest evidence that he did?
vooke, christians believed he was, Nothing in the New Testaments says he wasnt ever there. What evidence shows he couldnt have? This is something even protestants scholars agree on, since it has nothing to do with whether Peter was pope and the other cxatholic-protestant fights. For example, please look at this explanation and tell me where it is wrong...
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/miscstudies/peterrome.htm
Was the Apostle Peter Ever in Rome?
Among the many differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is the subject of Peter's relation to the church at Rome. The focus of this study is not to determine whether or not Peter was the first pope or bishop of the Roman church; this is assumed to be in error. This paper will simply seek to answer the question, "Was Peter ever in Rome?" The questions of his supposed papacy and mere presence in Rome are not necessarily related; the issues should remain divorced. But was Peter ever in Rom at all? Did he die there? Of course all Roman Catholics say "yes." Protestants are divided on the issue. This paper will present a brief summary of the Biblical and historical evidence supporting the claim that Peter did, indeed, die in Rome under the persecution of Nero, the Roman Emperor.
The Biblical evidence centers on 1 Peter 5:13 where Peter, writing to those of the dispersion, claims to be writing from "Babylon" — "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son." The question to be answered here is "What Babylon?" Is this the infamous Mesopotamian Babylon of Daniel? Or is it another? Three solutions have been suggested.
One suggestion is that this Babylon is not that of Mesopotamia but the small Egyptian town on the outskirts of Cairo. This suggestion will be discarded out of hand, There is absolutely no reason, except to counter the claim of the Romanists, to believe that Peter ever went down into Egypt except to counter the claim of the Romanists. This little Babylon was so insignificant that it would have deserved explanation by Peter if he did, in fact, write from there. To write of Babylon in the ancient near east speaking of the little town of Egypt is comparable to an American easterner speaking of Manhattan and referring to Manhattan, Kansas; exact clarification would be required. Some tradition survives of Mark going to Egypt, but none at all of Peter.
Another suggestion, of course, is that Peter's Babylon is that of Mesopotamia. While there is no evidence or tradition that Peter ever went east to Babylon, the question cannot be settled so easily. The issue here that must be settled is whether or not that Mesopotamian Babylon even existed in the second half of the first century, A.D. If it can be shown that it did not stand in the days of the apostles, then of course this cannot be Peter's Babylon. In 309 B.C. Antigonis I of Macedonia leveled Babylon. Later, in 275 B.C., Antiochus I took away the remaining civilian population and deported them to other cities. Pausanias, a Greek writer and geographer of the Roman period, said that there was absolutely nothing within the walls of Babylon. The city was later re-founded by Antiochus Epiphanes around 160 B.C., and it was later captured by the Parthians in 127 B.C. In the 30's B.C. Hercanus II was in residence there for a while and from him it is known that there was not much to the city at that time. The Roman geographer, Strabo, writing about the time of Christ said "the great city Babylon has become a wilderness." Evidently, the Euphrates River dried up during the time of the Parthians; after that, Babylon was no more (see Jeremiah 51:41-43). From Strabo to Trajan there is no mention of the city extant. Trajan (the Roman Emporer), eager to visit the infamous Babylon, was disappointed when he arrived at the site; it was only a wasted pile of rubble. Add to this observation that there is absolutely no tradition that Peter ever went to Babylon and that there was never a strong Mesopotamian church, it seems rather obvious that the Babylon of 1 Peter 5:13 can not be Babylon of Mesopotamia, the city of the exile.
The third and most probable choice is Rome. Three reasons support this choice. The first is found in 1 Peter 5:13 itself; Peter speaks of his associate, Marcus — no one could ask for a more Roman name. Although this in itself in not necessarily determinative, it does give the impression that Peter is in a Roman area. Next, it is common in ancient Jewish writings to find Rome designated Babylon. This is what John does in Revelation chapter seventeen, and possiblye chapter eighteen. Rome had been the source of great grief to the Jewish people, and the term Babylon was most fitting. The figure was so common to them that it would have been easily understood to be Rome. The last reason for identifying Peter's Babylon with Rome is the overwhelming amount of ancient tradition which states that he died in Rome. Clement of Rome (d A.D. 97) wrote that Peter and Paul were martyred together at Rome. (Lest the critics object that this tradition was begun by the Roman church to bolster their position, notice that this statement came from a man who died probably before the apostle John – long before "Roman Catholicism.") Tertullian, writing about A.D. 200 said the same. Eusebius, the fourth century church historian, said the same as well, adding that Peter's grave was in the Vatican "whether or not this is true may be debated, but he could not have been motivated by any "catholic" sentiment, for the Vatican was nothing then). Eusebius cites as his authority Caius, a Roman writer of the early third century, who said that Peter was buried in a shaft grave in Rome.
The question which rises at this point is whether or not this is an invention of the Roman Catholic Church to justify their own claims. Probably not, for two reasons: 1) The statement of Clement is much too early, and 2) by at least A.D. 170 all Christian burials were in the catacombs, not individual graves. If Caius, or anyone else of his time, had invented the story, he would have said that Peter was buried in the catacombs, for people of his era knew virtually nothing of earlier burial customs. To make the story believable, he (if he had invented it) would undoubtedly have said Peter was in the catacombs. To say that he was in an individual grave, he must have had ample reason.
It seems most in keeping with all information to date to conclude that while Peter was not the first Pope of the church of Rome, he was indeed in Rome. This gives fair evaluation of all the data, while the other theories are virtually without historical support. Scripture (1 Peter 5:13) is still accepted in it's plain meaning, viewing it in its historical context, while the strong tradition is given its place also.
-
Also, @ Omollo, I had forgot about the whole thing you listed in summary about Peter was sent to Jews, Paul to Gentiles. People usually assume that Jews in ancient Rome were somehow confined to the borders of Palestine. To the contrary, there were entire Jewish communities all over the ancient world, including Rome and for sometime they had even been bannished sometime in the Ad 40s for fighting amongst each other and causing a riot in the capital over a person named "Chrestus" a fight obviously between traditional Jews and Christian Jews in Rome. The ban was later lifted and they could go back to the capital. Hence, even granting that argument, Peter would not have been confined to palestine simply because he considered himself an postle of the Jews for Jews had an enormous diaspora all over the empire.
-
kadame,
I doubt Peter has ever been to Rome. Could you VERY briefly adduce your strongest and earliest evidence that he did?
vooke, christians believed he was, Nothing in the New Testaments says he wasnt ever there. What evidence shows he couldnt have? This is something even protestants scholars agree on, since it has nothing to do with whether Peter was pope and the other cxatholic-protestant fights. For example, please look at this explanation and tell me where it is wrong...
Actually kadame, I wanted to aks if he ever was in Rome and whether he was the first bishop/pope of Rome.
Usage of Babylon in his epistle may point to Rome but Paul writing to Rome calls it Rome. Heard the word Babylon developed after 70AD. This poses a serious dilemma because Romans was penned well before 70AD. Internal evidence against his Rome leadership among others is;
1. Paul wrote Romans to Christians in Rome and he sent shout outs to over 16 leaders there kina Aquila and Priscilla. It would be extremely strange for Paul not to mention an apostle if indeed Peter was its bishop. Note the epistle is directed to an existing church/congregation.
2. The other one is Galatians where we are told Peter was an apostle to Jews and Paul to Gentiles. And three years and 17years after Paul's conversion, he on both ocassions runs into Peter at Jerusalem who he describes as a pillar there together with James and John
Point is all internal evidence strongly suggest against that. Let's look at external evidence. Am open to that as well.
-
kadame,
I doubt Peter has ever been to Rome. Could you VERY briefly adduce your strongest and earliest evidence that he did?
vooke, christians believed he was, Nothing in the New Testaments says he wasnt ever there. What evidence shows he couldnt have? This is something even protestants scholars agree on, since it has nothing to do with whether Peter was pope and the other cxatholic-protestant fights. For example, please look at this explanation and tell me where it is wrong...
Actually kadame, I wanted to aks if he ever was in Rome and whether he was the first bishop/pope of Rome.
Usage of Babylon in his epistle may point to Rome but against that would be two points;
1. Paul wrote Romans to Christians in Rome and he sent shout outs to over 16 leaders there kinda Aquila and Priscilla. It would be extremely strange for Paul not to mention an apostle if indeed Peter was its bishop. Note the epistle is directed to an existing church/congregation.
2. The other one is Galatians where we are told Peter was an apostle to Jews and Paul to Gentiles. And fourteen years after Paul's conversion, he runs into Peter at Jerusalem who he describes as a pillar there together with James and John
Point is all internal evidence strongly suggest against that. Let's look at external evidence. Am open to that as well.
vooke, you've combined the two issues of Peter being Bishop of Rome and Peter being martyred in Rome, which one do you think is not probable from internal evidence, one or both? Personally, I think it established that Peter was not only in Rome but was killed there.
Point 1) The apostles were all missonaries, planting churches all over the place, not just Paul. :) Paul not mentioning Peter at most points to him not being aware of his presence in Rome at the time of he wrote, which may mean Peter was not there at that time, or Paul didn't know about it. It doesnt mean that this point in time is definitive of all History of the Apostles in Rome. Also, remember that Jews were expelled from the capital by the emperor sometime in the 40s AD, so even if Peter had been in Rome before this time, he would have left Rome during the exile (Acts 18: 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius%27_expulsion_of_Jews_from_Rome
Point 2) There were Jews in Rome as in many other towns/cities beyond Palestine, as you can see if you follow Pauls journeys in the book of Acts. Thus, this division of Jews/Gentiles between Peter and Paul could not prevent Peter from being in Rome where there were apparently enough Jews to cause such fracus that, for peace's sake, they had to be expelled.
The only "external evidence" is the beliefs of the christians about it that were never contradicted by other churches. Think about it, why would the church that had actually burried Peter just not say something about the stories of his martyrdom in Rome?
-
vooke, you've combined the two issues of Peter being Bishop of Rome and Peter being martyred in Rome, which one do you think is not probable from internal evidence, one or both? Personally, I think it established that Peter was not only in Rome but was killed there.
Point 1) The apostles were all missonaries, planting churches all over the place, not just Paul. :) Paul not mentioning Peter at most points to him not being aware of his presence in Rome at the time of he wrote, which may mean Peter was not there at that time, or Paul didn't know about it. It doesnt mean that this point in time is definitive of all History of the Apostles in Rome. Also, remember that Jews were expelled from the capital by the emperor sometime in the 40s AD, so even if Peter had been in Rome before this time, he would have left Rome during the exile (Acts 18: 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius%27_expulsion_of_Jews_from_Rome
Kadame,
It is preposterous to even suggest that Paul can pen an epistle to Romans a congregation founded and run by Peter and he is totally ignorant of its leadership. Aquila and Priscilla actually headed a church from their house in Rome. They are acknowledged as such in two epistles, 1 Cor and Romans. Those was leaders from Rome.
Note, Peter's epistles was penned much later than the expulsion. If Peter planted a church within 5 years of Pentecost at Rome, came back to Jerusalem, then over 30 years later he pens his epistles while in the interim Paul is writing to Rome and visiting them....don't sound right.
May be at this point we should aks what being a Bishop/Pope in first century entailed. Church planting hardly looks like it, else Paul was bishop over all those cities he planted churches. To my mind, a bishop was more of a resident leader of a local congregation(s).
Galatians clearly describes Peter,James and John as pillars in Jerusalem. Now imagine Paul visiting Jerusalem twice and running into both and on one ocassions describing them as leaders there.
Point 2) There were Jews in Rome as in many other towns/cities beyond Palestine, as you can see if you follow Pauls journeys in the book of Acts. Thus, this division of Jews/Gentiles between Peter and Paul could not prevent Peter from being in Rome where there were apparently enough Jews to cause such a racus that for peace, they had to be expelled.
No doubt Jews was scattered all over in diaspora. This is why Pentecost was intriguing. They heard disciples speaking in their diverse tongues, their adopted languages. But the idea of a parallel church in Rome is just way off. Paul epistles contain salutations to Gentiles and Jews. This suggests a mixture of the same.
The only "external evidence" is the beliefs of the christians about it that were never contradicted by other churches. Think about it, why would the church that had actually burried Peter just not say something about the stories of his martyrdom in Rome?
Let's examine those 'external evidence' starting from the earliest.
-
vooke, you've combined the two issues of Peter being Bishop of Rome and Peter being martyred in Rome, which one do you think is not probable from internal evidence, one or both? Personally, I think it established that Peter was not only in Rome but was killed there.
Point 1) The apostles were all missonaries, planting churches all over the place, not just Paul. :) Paul not mentioning Peter at most points to him not being aware of his presence in Rome at the time of he wrote, which may mean Peter was not there at that time, or Paul didn't know about it. It doesnt mean that this point in time is definitive of all History of the Apostles in Rome. Also, remember that Jews were expelled from the capital by the emperor sometime in the 40s AD, so even if Peter had been in Rome before this time, he would have left Rome during the exile (Acts 18: 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius%27_expulsion_of_Jews_from_Rome
Kadame,
It is preposterous to even suggest that Paul can pen an epistle to Romans a congregation founded and run by Peter and he is totally ignorant of its leadership. Aquila and Priscilla actually headed a church from their house in Rome. They are acknowledged as such in two epistles, 1 Cor and Romans. Those was leaders from Rome.
Who spoke of leadership? You said this is proof Peter wasnt there. Thats why I asked you If you were arguing about Peters presence or Bishopric. About the founding of the church, Paul himself is considered a founder of that church. Who "started" or was there first among the apostles is of zero consequence. It could have been a "nobody" christian, for all we know. Even if Peter only visited it, they would still have considered him as they did, later, to be among their founders, along with Paul. So I dont get your point here besides, Peter is not in Rome when Paul writes.
Note, Peter's epistles was penned much later than the expulsion. If Peter planted a church within 5 years of Pentecost at Rome, came back to Jerusalem, then over 30 years later he pens his epistles while in the interim Paul is writing to Rome and visiting them....don't sound right.
Peter never actually did much writing, if you have never noticed. That doesnt mean he did zero missionary work. Paul wrote virtually all of the Epistles with few exceptions due to his education, he was no fisherman. But again, the idea that Peter jumpstarted christianity in Rome, or even Paul himself, has not been claimed as a Basis for Peters presence there at any point thereafter. That they nurtured that church later even by appointing Bishops wouldve been enough.
May be at this point we should aks what being a Bishop/Pope in first century entailed. Church planting hardly looks like it, else Paul was bishop over all those cities he planted churches. To my mind, a bishop was more of a resident leader of a local congregation(s).
Doesnt mean he couldnt move to another city and be replaced in his church by another. Peter was considered Bishop of Antioch, Rome and Alexandra, in the first centuries. I'm sure they knew what Bishop meant.
Galatians clearly describes Peter,James and John as pillars in Jerusalem. Now imagine Paul visiting Jerusalem twice and running into both and on one ocassions describing them as leaders there.
Dont get the point here. Peter did not remain in Jerusalem, though he was there at some point, serving a significant role.
No doubt Jews was scattered all over in diaspora. This is why Pentecost was intriguing. They heard disciples speaking in their diverse tongues, their adopted languages. But the idea of a parallel church in Rome is just way off. Paul epistles contain salutations to Gentiles and Jews. This suggests a mixture of the same.
Which means you refute your own point that Peter couldnt have been in Rome because of that so-called partition, eh? Why was Paul addressing Peter's flock, per your view? If Paul could minister to an undivided church without violating your "division" argument, then so could Peter. :) No parallel church needed. So thank you for blowing that strawman out of the water :D
Let's examine those 'external evidence' starting from the earliest.
Promptly. Next post. :)
-
Also, vooke, you might want to produce your evidence for the claim that Babylon was "invented" from 70 AD only. :) Just to keep this a fair exchange and not just you making demands and me scamparing to answer. :)
Here is your "evidence", happily borrowed from other people's listings, like the link below. I would also like to see your own evidence of Peter dying elsewhere, to counter this foolish Christian myth. :) or offer an explanation why the church Peter actually died with was so oblivious, allowing the Romans to manufacture a whole tradition of their myth without so much as a counter story/myth/tradition.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-roman-residency
Clement I 90s AD, associating the persecutions with Peter and Paul
But, to cease from the examples of old time, let us come to those who contended in the days nearest to us; let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted and contended unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles: Peter, who because of unrighteous jealousy suffered not one or two but many trials, and having thus given his testimony (??????????) went to the glorious place which was his due. Through jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the prize of endurance; seven times he was in bonds, he was exiled, he was stoned, he was a herald both in the East and in the West, he gained the noble fame of his faith, he taught righteousness to all the world, and when he had reached the limits of the West he gave his testimony (??????????) before the rulers, and thus passed from the world and was taken up into the Holy Place,?the greatest example of endurance. To these men with their holy lives was gathered a great multitude of the chosen, who were the victims of jealousy and offered among us (?? ????) the fairest example in their endurance under many indignities and tortures.
Ignatius of Antioch
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).
Papias wrote, about 140 A.D,
“Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom.”
Dionysius of Corinth
"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).
Irenaeus
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).
Gaius
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).
Clement of Alexandria
"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).
Tertullian
"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (ibid., 32:2).
"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).
The Little Labyrinth
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
The Poem Against the Marcionites
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
Peter of Alexandria
"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius
"When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven. And it was nothing to marvel at, for Paul was there—he that was caught up into the third heaven" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.
"In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero. . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world.
"The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome and where the name Christianswas first applied, as to a new people" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).
Augustine
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
-
-
The way I see it we have two distinct Christian movements:
1. Paul's Synthesized Ministry
2. The Nazareens's
James - The Brother of Jesus - headed the Original Mission of Jesus while Paul led another which incorporated myths and traditions of prevailing religions.
The Nazareens accepted their Jewish background, worshipped in the Jewish temple and upheld all the laws of moses minus the extremist dogmas that Jesus had taught against - such as the excessive zealotry in respect of the Sabbath and other fundamentalist practices. Remember Jesus preached liberalism and devotion to God.
The Nazareens upheld the position of God as indivisible and non dependent on any other being. On the other hand Paul cultivated Jesus as "God". The elevation of Jesus from the mere servant of God to his son and eventually God in his own right appears to have been progressive and was aided by the increase in Christian political power and influence characterized by the persecution and destruction of opposing and parallel religions and beliefs.
My personal view is that starting with Paul and ending with Constantine, Christianity sought to encompass the beliefs of the people of the Roman empire - ending with a compromise religion that gave up on certain core Jewish practices and acceptance of non Jewish traditions. The birthday of Jesus comes to mind. One can also include the consumption of alcohol, pork etc.
The Nazareens died not least because of their fidelity to Moses or The Jewish religion.
Therefore it is not strange that symbols of Baal and other heathen gods found their way into the synthesized religion - Christianity.
Bella tell me something.
Christianity was a banned sect in the Roman Empire. It can be likened to Al Qaeda today in a world dominated by the US. How on earth would the head of Al Qaeda establish a functioning body in Washington (=Rome)?
Peter did not hold a high office in the Nazareen movement whose leader was James. How could he then have occupied a higher position than James? He did not even succeed James. He was not literate as opposed to the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
-
Hi Omollo, interesting ideas....I disagree :) But I bet you already knew I do, lol!
Omollo, these ideas all depend on discounting the most reliable historical evidence we have....the New Testament itself. Please, just take some time tonight, or tomorrow, maybe...read through the book of the Acts (of the Apostles), bearing in mind, it and the Gospel of St. Luke are actually one book, as I understand, but divided by tradition in order to keep the "Gospels" together in organizing the New Testament. There isn't a more reliable evidence regarding the beliefs and practices of the earliest christians than the New Testament and some other christian writings from the same time.
The following seems pretty clear to me when I read Acts. It continues the story after Jesus has resurrected, promised the coming of the Holy Spirit and ascended in Luke. Acts continues the story now by focussing on the christian community seeing as Christ has exited the scene as the "starring" character. You will notice very clearly that for some years, before the time that Peter is arrested and escapes prison and is forced to depart Jerusalem, it is not in question that he is the leader of the christian community there at all. It is he who preaches on pentecost, it is he who directs that Judas place be filled and leads the church to choosing st. Mathias by casting lots. It is before him that Ananias and saphira bring their gifts before they die etc etc. St. James simply isnt the main guide here until after Peter's departure, necessitated by Peter pulling a prison-break. St. Peter then moved to Antioch where he was Bishop. James ruled the Jerusalem church. But even then, it is Peter that God commands to open the church to gentiles through a vision. When a council is called to settle the fight about circumcision, the church meets in Jerusalem, rightly presided over by its leader, st James, but even so, it is Peter who settles the "debate" in that when he stands to speak, all debate ceases and does not resume thereafter. only "supporting evidence" is adduced by Paul and his companion in support of Peters teaching. Then st James considers the matter settled and proceeds to issue decrees in conformity thereto. After that, Acts mainly follows the activities of st Paul, the other apostles fall to the background.
About leading a banned movement in the capital? Well, I am honestly not sure about the issue. Someone had to lead that church, even if not Peter, some one else, because that church did in fact exist. It wasnt fictional. In fact it paid a really heavy price once Nero "founded" christian persecution as a Roman practice.
Jesus being God invented by Paul? Honestly, st Paul gets too much flack from JWs and Muslims, and too much credit. Personally, I find the most explicit words attributing Divinity to Jesus being in the Gospels, none of which were written by Paul. "The word was God" for example, which "became flesh", and "all things came to be through him", in John. St Thomas is recorded as exclaiming to Jesus "My Lord and my God!" The Gospels also attribute to Jesus qualities that were clearly divine. Even secular evidence from the 1st centuries describes christians externally as people who sang hymns to Christ "as to a god". Yes, Paul also says "he did not cling to his equality with God", but he is not the one who invents the notion. In fact, st Paul is a late-comer in christianity. Considering his background, he was MOST jewish of all the apostles, not just by blood, belief, regular lifestyle, but by career/training, he lost most for becoming christian. I just dont see what his motive would be in perverting christianity with paganism.
Another reason i dont accept the theory is that christian Jews were persecuted by other Jews for believing "blasphemous" things about Jesus and eventually kicked out of the synagogue altogether. Its clear that no early christian looked at Jesus like a regular prophet at all, he was much more to them all, without exception. And the Romans targetted them all, not just the jewish ones who were soon the minority after gentiles were allowed in. The perscutions continued sporadically for the next 3 centuries, even after a jewish segment identifying itself by its jewishness distinct from other christians had vanished.
-
vooke,
If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point. Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection.
Termie,
I think you hate me with a passion. Nuff Sed draws my attention to three phallics (http://www.nipate.org/index.php?topic=2004.0)in her signature and aks me if they remind me of anything. I swear they did just that I couldn't figure what. Then it all came back, a hard on and two balls erected(pun) on Ellen Gould White grave. She ordered it soon after her hubby's death.
I believe it is very impolite to ignore a question/challenge.
No. You are entertaining. There are not too many who can mix superstition and rationality with a straight face like you can. A sight to behold. How can I hate that? I am just thinking you might hound Daily Bread from this place.
-
Kadame,
To avoid derailing this thread, I will open a new thread on this topic. Please don't hesitate to repeat what you just said here. I will do myself
-
Kadame,
To avoid derailing this thread, I will open a new thread on this topic. Please don't hesitate to repeat what you just said here. I will do myself
vooke, no problem. Just use the quoting function and respond to my post there. :)
-
Omorlo,
my views on phallics oscillate from horror to contempt. I think it was the early 90s when I heard a tape about Illuminati and the Masonic symbols all over US Capitol and on the dollar bill. There was no internet, just me and my notes. I could see the signs all over. They was hiding in plain sight.
Since then I have studied the much that is available on Freemasonry, Satanism then I got bored. Ignored them.
My current position is there are two levels of Freemasonry, the innocent members of a fraternity. And then there are the really deep guys into satanism. So when I run into a phallic, I see either ignorance or some connection with freemasonry/illuminati. I recall the first time I visited Mombasa Continental. Heard it is owned by the Ndegwa family,the former CBK governor or something. I saw the compass and square. Right there at the lobby. Impossible to miss. And it was constructed using antique stuff. Beautiful but very conspicuous. Unfortunately I had no smart phone with me. I panicked the entire night. The next day? BS .....fun began and lasted my whole stay.
When I see them erected around Christian stuff, I see a past/present connection to those secret societies but I have no proof. so I ignore them
-
Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.
vooke,
If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point. Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection.
-
At the root of the schism between Shias and Sunnis is exactly this reverence or worship (if you like) of the dead.
Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.
vooke,
If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point. Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection.
-
Oh? I don't have much information on the sects of the religion of peace. Your informative pieces and pictures of Vatican are highly appreciated. Talking of worship of the dead, I'll post a comment on Windy's thread on "Nyaatha beautification."
At the root of the schism between Shias and Sunnis is exactly this reverence or worship (if you like) of the dead.
Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.
vooke,
If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point. Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection.
-
Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.
Ellen White is INFALLIBLE else give me just one bit you differ with her on anything, and explain why her writings carry as much authority as scriptures.
Whether Adventists do pilgrimage or not, the fact is a 'prophet' of God erected (pun) a serious hard on on her husband's grave and continued receiving revelations after this. That is quite telling. It means either of these three things;
1. She was completely ignorant of a hard-on ( kinda hard seeing she was taught Masonic symbols in Australia)
2. Hard-ons erected on her hubby's grave was a non-issue for her spirit/angel/god
3. At least husband was into Freemasonry. Or both of them
If she was ignorant, her family should have done the needful and removed it unless they was equally ignorant.
If hard-ons never bothered her, her god/angel/spirit, then it should not bother Nuff Sed
If she and hubby was into Freemasonry/luciferianism, then Nuff Sed is mighty welcome
If it is #2 or #3, Nuff Sed would do well to start budgeting for her hard-on asap
-
Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.
vooke,
If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point. Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection.
Daily Bread, those persecuted early Christians whose pictures you loved to put in your signature were often caught invoking the apostles at their grave-sites before they were led away to the coliseum in Rome for the lions to eat them for lunch. Just saying! :D
-
Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.
vooke,
If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point. Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection.
Daily Bread, those persecuted early Christians whose pictures you loved to put in your signature were often caught invoking the apostles at their grave-sites before they were led away to the coliseum in Rome for the lions to eat them for lunch. Just saying! :D
That would be interesting to note. Most of the persecuted Christians of the Dark Ages were former Catholics (Luther being a prime example). It would not be surprising that they had not fully cleansed their hard disks before they were led to the lions and to the fiery stake. I'm not even surprised because often we only hear the story from the persecutor herself because "heretics" and their families were hunted down and killed, so we do not have their side of the story. The question is not so much whose name they were invoking but why a fellow human being decided they were "heretics" and had to die for what they believed.
Some quotations on how Rome persecuted God's church.
“In June, 1504, the holy Gennadius was obliged to retire. Finally, in December 1504, a council was called with reference to the heretics, at which the heir to the throne, Basil Iwanositch, was present.” “The decision of the grand duke was: Some are to be burned; others to have their tongue cut out, and to be exiled; however, the major part was to be confined in monasteries. . . The church commanded during the week of orthodoxy [the first week of fasting] that anathema be pronounced against the Jewish sect. Some who succeeded in escaping this punishment by feigned repentance retained their heretical opinions, while on the other hand, the capital punishment of heretics for a long time remained the object of censure, thou no one any longer dared to spread the heresy openly.”
- Archbishop Philaret.
About the year 1200, Pope Innocent III established the Inquisition. Bishops and priests being, in the opinion of the pope, neither fit nor sufficiently diligent for the extirpation of heretics, two new orders, those of St. Dominic and St. Francis were instituted. How many observers of the Sabbath lost their lives under the tortures of the Inquisition, only the day of judgment will reveal. Wherever the popes could do so, they forced promises from princes to aid them in the extinction of the heretics, as, for example, when Emperor Frederic II was crowned by Pope Honorius (A.D.1220). Hefele says.
“But Frederic proclaimed on the day of his coronation, these laws demanded by the pope:….
5. We condemn to perpetual infamy and put under ban the Puritans, Paterines, Speronists, Leoinsts, Arnoldists, Circumcised, and all other heretics, and ordain that their goods be confiscated.
6. All magistrates are bound under oath to drive out the heretics.: 46
The observers of the Sabbath are classified here as the Circumcised. King Louis IX published (A.D. 1229) the statute Cupientes, in which he charges himself with the duty to clear southern France from heretics, and in order to bring this about he offers rewards for their discovery. 47
In the same year the council of Toulouse was held, where a number of canons were passed concerning the extinction of heretics. We quote samples:
”Canon 3,-- The lords of the different districts shall have the villas, houses, and woods diligently searched, and the hiding places of the heretics destroyed.
“Canon 4.-- If any one allows a heretic to remain in his territory, he loses his possession forever, and his body is in the hands of the magistrates to receive due punishment.
“Canon 5-- But also such are liable to the law, whose territory has been made the frequent hiding-place of heretics, not by his knowledge, but by his negligence.
“Canon 6-- The house in which a heretic is found, shall be torn down, and the place or land be confiscated.
“Canon 14-- Lay members are not allowed to possess the books of either the Old or the New Testaments.”
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/historyofsabbath/hos_twentyone_b.html#46
-
I'm sure you think Protestants were innocent warm, fuzzy teddy bears in those days. Nothing on the tomb-worshipping persecuted early Christians, though? :D
Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.
vooke,
If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point. Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection.
Daily Bread, those persecuted early Christians whose pictures you loved to put in your signature were often caught invoking the apostles at their grave-sites before they were led away to the coliseum in Rome for the lions to eat them for lunch. Just saying! :D
That would be interesting to note. Most of the persecuted Christians of the Dark Ages were former Catholics (Luther being a prime example). It would not be surprising that they had not fully cleansed their hard disks before they were led to the lions and to the fiery stake. I'm not even surprised because often we only hear the story from the persecutor herself because "heretics" and their families were hunted down and killed, so we do not have their side of the story. The question is not so much whose name they were invoking but why a fellow human being decided they were "heretics" and had to die for what they believed.
Some quotations on how Rome persecuted God's church.
“In June, 1504, the holy Gennadius was obliged to retire. Finally, in December 1504, a council was called with reference to the heretics, at which the heir to the throne, Basil Iwanositch, was present.” “The decision of the grand duke was: Some are to be burned; others to have their tongue cut out, and to be exiled; however, the major part was to be confined in monasteries. . . The church commanded during the week of orthodoxy [the first week of fasting] that anathema be pronounced against the Jewish sect. Some who succeeded in escaping this punishment by feigned repentance retained their heretical opinions, while on the other hand, the capital punishment of heretics for a long time remained the object of censure, thou no one any longer dared to spread the heresy openly.”
- Archbishop Philaret.
About the year 1200, Pope Innocent III established the Inquisition. Bishops and priests being, in the opinion of the pope, neither fit nor sufficiently diligent for the extirpation of heretics, two new orders, those of St. Dominic and St. Francis were instituted. How many observers of the Sabbath lost their lives under the tortures of the Inquisition, only the day of judgment will reveal. Wherever the popes could do so, they forced promises from princes to aid them in the extinction of the heretics, as, for example, when Emperor Frederic II was crowned by Pope Honorius (A.D.1220). Hefele says.
“But Frederic proclaimed on the day of his coronation, these laws demanded by the pope:….
5. We condemn to perpetual infamy and put under ban the Puritans, Paterines, Speronists, Leoinsts, Arnoldists, Circumcised, and all other heretics, and ordain that their goods be confiscated.
6. All magistrates are bound under oath to drive out the heretics.: 46
The observers of the Sabbath are classified here as the Circumcised. King Louis IX published (A.D. 1229) the statute Cupientes, in which he charges himself with the duty to clear southern France from heretics, and in order to bring this about he offers rewards for their discovery. 47
In the same year the council of Toulouse was held, where a number of canons were passed concerning the extinction of heretics. We quote samples:
”Canon 3,-- The lords of the different districts shall have the villas, houses, and woods diligently searched, and the hiding places of the heretics destroyed.
“Canon 4.-- If any one allows a heretic to remain in his territory, he loses his possession forever, and his body is in the hands of the magistrates to receive due punishment.
“Canon 5-- But also such are liable to the law, whose territory has been made the frequent hiding-place of heretics, not by his knowledge, but by his negligence.
“Canon 6-- The house in which a heretic is found, shall be torn down, and the place or land be confiscated.
“Canon 14-- Lay members are not allowed to possess the books of either the Old or the New Testaments.”
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/historyofsabbath/hos_twentyone_b.html#46
-
I'm sure you think Protestants were innocent warm, fuzzy teddy bears in those days. Nothing on the tomb-worshipping persecuted early Christians, though? :D
Bella I'm not that foolish to think protestants were warm, fuzzy teddy bears. The invocation of moral equivalence won't do in Christianity.
-
I'm sure you think Protestants were innocent warm, fuzzy teddy bears in those days. Nothing on the tomb-worshipping persecuted early Christians, though? :D
Bella I'm not that foolish to think protestants were warm, fuzzy teddy bears. The invocation of moral equivalence won't do in Christianity.
No it wont, just honesty. Speaking of which, when did the subject of this thread turn into what the catholic church did to protestants 500 years ago?
-
Like I said in the other thread, today is clearly not a good morning for me. I am just not interested in another useless debate that will leave us all exactly where we started in our beliefs, just seems pointless more and more, these days. I am sorry about the snarkiness in my posts but I really should take a time out. Enjoy your nipate convos, don't let Bella ruin it for y'all. I'm out 8)
-
Like I said in the other thread, today is clearly not a good morning for me. I am just not interested in another useless debate that will leave us all exactly where we started in our beliefs, just seems pointless more and more, these days. I am sorry about the snarkiness in my posts but I really should take a time out. Enjoy your nipate convos, don't let Bella ruin it for y'all. I'm out 8)
Agreed. It is highly unlikely that people will change positions because of what is posted here. When you posted did you want to change our positions? Maybe not. We leave any debate better informed than before. Whether we change or not is dependent on how we respond to the conviction of the Spirit of God of what is true, what is biblical.
Debate does not become useless just because people disagree. In a post up there you disagreed with us. It did not make the debate useless.
-
Agreed. It is highly unlikely that people will change positions because of what is posted here. When you posted did you want to change our positions? Maybe not. We leave any debate better informed than before. Whether we change or not is dependent on how we respond to the conviction of the Spirit of God of what is true, what is biblical.
Debate does not become useless just because people disagree. In a post up there you disagreed with us. It did not make the debate useless.
Nuff Sed,
I agree with you in part. Debates are healthy regardless of the outcome. Doctrines and religion are emotive issues and people react differently when their beliefs are challenged. As an example is how you have ignored the subject of the thread and engaged kadame on a totally unrelated topic. That's deflection.
I started one on Peter and papacy, invited kadame and she heartily contributed. I opted out after I had my fill. So, likewise start a thread on necromancy and sainthood and invite kadame. Am curious to know how a miracle performed by praying to/through a saint is verified which I hear is a step towards sainthood. But I would not aks on this thread. Here it's all about SDA hard-ons
-
Agreed. It is highly unlikely that people will change positions because of what is posted here. When you posted did you want to change our positions? Maybe not. We leave any debate better informed than before. Whether we change or not is dependent on how we respond to the conviction of the Spirit of God of what is true, what is biblical.
Debate does not become useless just because people disagree. In a post up there you disagreed with us. It did not make the debate useless.
Nuff Sed,
I agree with you in part. Debates are healthy regardless of the outcome. Doctrines and religion are emotive issues and people react differently when their beliefs are challenged. As an example is how you have ignored the subject of the thread and engaged kadame on a totally unrelated topic. That's deflection.
I started one on Peter and papacy, invited kadame and she heartily contributed. I opted out after I had my fill. So, likewise start a thread on necromancy and sainthood and invite kadame. Am curious to know how a miracle performed by praying to/through a saint is verified which I hear is a step towards sainthood. But I would not aks on this thread. Here it's all about SDA hard-ons
The sainthood is already in place when these things are happening. If my understanding is still up to date, the people on earth don't make the saint. They merely recognize the fact. You must mean a step towards formal recognition of the same.
I think miracles are verified through the normal process. Someone prays for the saint's intercession usually after all else has failed and something good happens. An incorruptible corpse does not hurt the case for sainthood either.
Here is an example for Saint Josemaria.
am a fresh graduate who have been seeking for my first job recently. The process has been frustrating since I have a medical condition which may hinder me to get a job. Several failures in job application have made me lose hope and sometimes envy other people’s normal life. However thanks to my girlfriend’s encouragement I have begun to seek the intercession of St. Josemaría for finding a job. I kept praying to St. Josemaría and asking for his intercession to help me to get a suitable job so that I can start to contribute financially to my family.
Two days later I received an offer from a bank and the bank asked me to do a pre-employment medical check-up. At that time I realized the power of praying the novena of the prayer card of St. Josemaría and kept praying it before breakfast every day. A few days later the human resource officer called me again and said they needed to study my case further because of the result of the medical check-up. At that time I was frustrated but I trusted my girlfriend and St. Josemaría. Hence I continued to pray to him. Finally two miracles happened last week. The doctor told me that there is antibody developing in my body and that my medical condition is improving. Furthermore I was accepted by the company. This is one of the sensational moments in my life!
I would like to sincerely thank St. Josemaría for helping me to realize the importance of prayer and restoring my hope. Thank you my Lord for letting me know your faithful servant St. Josemaría who has been instrumental in my receiving the gifted Catholic faith and for this specific favor granted through St. Josemaría.
http://www.josemariaescriva.info/article/two-miracles-in-one-week (http://www.josemariaescriva.info/article/two-miracles-in-one-week)
In is the wiki article on Josemaria's canonization, some obviously well qualified professionals conclude that a cure of a carmelite nun could not be attributed to natural causes.
1982: Creation of another tribunal to document a miracle attributed to the intercession of the Servant of God. This presided over by Cardinal Enrique y Tarancon. The miracle had occurred in 1976 with the sudden cure of a Carmelite nun suffering from terminal cancer. On April 3, this tribunal was concluded and a certified copy of the proceedings was sent to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in Rome.
1990: On March 20, Affirmative Verdict by the Ordinary Congregation of Cardinals and Bishops. On April 9, the Pope ordered the publication of the Decree on the heroic virtues of the Servant of God. After the promulgation of this Decree, the Postulation could present to the Congregation the Positio of the Madrid process on the proposed miraculous cure. On June 30, the Medical Consultants of the Congregation, in their technical report, concluded that the cure could not be explained by natural causes. On July 14, after examining the case, the Meeting of Theologian Consultants affirmed the miraculous character of the cure and attributed its cause directly to the intercession of the Servant of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization_of_Josemar%C3%ADa_Escriv%C3%A1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization_of_Josemar%C3%ADa_Escriv%C3%A1)
-
Voke thanks. It's a rare thing to see you agreeing with me. :D I'd rather see you agree with the Bible more. I'm also curious about the verification of miracles as a necessary step for canonization. Of even greater interest is the attribution. See Windy's example of Josemaria where the person attributes the answered prayer to Josemaria and thanks him for it. If the prayer was audible, I would not be surprised if the devil himself answered it to entrench worship of a dead man rather than trust in God's answer to prayer.
-
Voke thanks. It's a rare thing to see you agreeing with me. :D I'd rather see you agree with the Bible more. I'm also curious about the verification of miracles as a necessary step for canonization. Of even greater interest is the attribution. See Windy's example of Josemaria where the person attributes the answered prayer to Josemaria and thanks him for it. If the prayer was audible, I would not be surprised if the devil himself answered it to entrench worship of a dead man rather than trust in God's answer to prayer.
Am on the side of truth Nuff Sed, and am continously studying and praying to learn more truth.
If Mary or Paul' showed up, I'd kick they butts so hard they'd never attempt again.