![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
 Posted - May 28 2003 : 04:09:20 AM
|
quote:
Ok Lainey, I just HATE it when you beat around the bush...for once, could you just say what you think!!! Seriously though, don't get me wrong, I am hardly ready to convert, just trying to form a fair and informed opinion here! But it does raise the question again, what is the difference between a religion and a cult...is it mind control? If so, doesn't all religion use an element of that?
Yes, once again we come back to this question. First, a clarification (JUST for you, Adele!). When I used the word 'cult' I was using its more recent pejorative meaning, i.e., an organization that uses mind control, deception, fear, societal restrictions, & manufactured, erroneous "doctrine" to keep its members in line. Free will, which is the foundation of true religion & the heart of Christian soteriology, is nowhere to be found in a cult society. It would be fatal to its existence.
Cult?
The word 'cult' in its pure form is not negative at all. Its Latin origin - inhabitants, groupings, worship, cultivate, worshippers, reverence, etc. Basically, its traditional meaning is a group of worshippers or a group that performs specific ceremonies or rites. The ancient pagan world had cults devoted to specific deities & the Christian world still refers to the 'cult of the saints' or 'Marian cults.' The word shouldn't be used too quickly as a derogatory write-off as it is tempting to designate any religious group or denomination that disagrees with our own system of belief as a cult. {It's probably more accurate to stick to the word 'occult' as this does mean to conceal, to hide, secretive, etc.} Another danger regarding the defining of cults is allowing pluralistic cultures to legislate regarding who is & who isn't (such as France has done). Remember the tragedies of Ruby Ridge & Waco? Having first been marginalized & vilified as whackos, fanatics, & cultists, both groups were made easy targets of government brutality & both incidents were publicly *justified* on the basis of the members' "fanaticism." The same thing had occurred in Philadelphia during the '80s with the firebombing of M.O.V.E.'s building. So, the question of cult vs religion is very important but must be considered cautiously.
Religion?
An Deus sit? - Does God exist? This is the foremost question of theological philosophy & the answer, once discovered, guides & forms the character & beliefs of the religious. To ask, search, reflect, discern, & ultimately believe the answer to the question of God requires faith & reason, & these two intangible expressions can not contradict each other, nor blossom apart from free will. One can reason the existence of God (theology of natural philosophy) but it takes faith to accept & embrace that discovery, or to embrace God with a 'yes' that initiates conversion. All of this is built upon man's free will to act, to choose, to accept, or to reject. This is the business & purpose of religion (and the inherent business of man). It was an underlying theme even in Sophocles' Theban tragedies even though there had been no known expression of the concept of free will up until that point (5th century) in Greek literature/philosophy. Everything centered around the Fates & the Oracle at Delphi & the curse of the gods - a belief in absolute predestination that no one could escape (a calvinistic doom) ... until Oedipus, though condemned to unwittingly commit atrocious offenses, responded with actions that sought to circumvent the Oracle's prediction, & later, when faced with the reality of his guilt plead innocence by ignorance, & then again raised the question of free will by his willful, chosen actions which set into motion his own downfall. Free will, it seems, had a place even in the face of ruthless fate.
So, no, all religio
|
"Fides et Ratio" |
|
report to moderator
|
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 28 2003 : 04:53:19 AM
|
Hehehehe....clarification JUST for ME!! I feel so special....
I would argue that the majority of established religions use an element of mind/emotion control in varying degrees. There is just a difference between what would be considered a safe 'encouragement to follow the teachings/practices of the religion' and 'enforcement'. I have read of the eight elements of mind control that Robert J Lofton came up with (which seems to make a great deal of sense) but I still see how they apply to other religions.
With regard to some of the 'bad practices' of JW's that you referred to in the previous post, is it not possible that some of these stories are from disgruntled former believers who have reason to attack their former religion, in the same way as we hear a lot of negative comments from people who have been in a Catholic school system for example.
Incidentally, just for the record, you should hear some of the debates between me and my friend, because I am SO playing Devil's Advocate here!!! I feel like I am in some kind of Debate Test right now, where I have to oppose and defend both points of view!! 
A philosophy forum sounds like a good idea Lainey, although at the moment, I think there is room enough in the Lions Den.
Would you like a cookie to go with that high priced cup of coffee??!!
A |
report to moderator  |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 28 2003 : 6:19:02 PM
|
| O.K.,I can't take it anymore...Time to get philosopical. What do you get when you cross a J.W. with an atheist? Someone banging on your door for no reason. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - May 29 2003 : 1:17:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by securemann
O.K.,I can't take it anymore...Time to get philosopical. What do you get when you cross a J.W. with an atheist? Someone banging on your door for no reason.
As a religion writer for a newspaper who always appreciates good religious humour...I LOVE THIS!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I'm keeping this in my treasury for future use...
Christina (one who reads but doesn't post in the Lion's Den...) |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 29 2003 : 2:33:08 PM
|
| Ah yes, some clean humor at times will do some good.Didn't mean to offend anyone.If I did,I apologize. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 29 2003 : 5:08:37 PM
|
| My son leads the praise band at his church. They have to set equipment up each Sunday carrying it from their homes to the church. They also sing at various and sundry places. Whenever they are traveling with all their stuff they call themselves the "Holy Roadies". Thought it was pretty clever. Christina feel free to put this one in your treasury, too. |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 03 2003 : 02:22:41 AM
|
Thought this was pretty amusing ...
St Margaret's Church Shop
by Mike McMillan
Near where I live there's an opportunity shop called St Margaret's Church Shop. Every time I see the name, bits of dialog like the following start running through my head - in the voices of the Pythons, especially John Cleese. Obviously deeply significant...
Scene: St Margaret's Church Shop. Assistant is behind counter.
Bell rings. Enter Customer. Looks around nervously.
Assistant: Can I help you, sir?
Customer: Oh - ah - yes. I'm looking for a church. Are you St Margaret?
Assistant: No, sir, I'm her assistant. She has the day off on Thursdays. What were you looking for exactly?
Customer: Well, I don't know. What have you got?
Assistant: Is it for yourself, sir, or as a gift?
Customer: Oh, for myself.
Assistant: Well then, the Anglican here is one of our most popular models. Classic styling - been around a long time. Very flexible, wide range of styles - a wide variety of people like it, and they often find it very comfortable.
Customer: Well - it's a little fancier than I -
Assistant: Oh, you'd prefer something simpler? How about the Evangelical? Enjoyed wide popularity most of this century. Very durable, hard-wearing, no-frills kind of church. Were you thinking denominational or non-denominational?
Customer: Oh, I don't really mind.
Assistant: Well, the Baptist is a popular model. Straight, conservative, a very respectable brand of church.
Customer: Well, perhaps that's a bit too...
Assistant: Oh, were you looking for something a little more adventurous?
Customer: Well - yes. I mean, not to excess, of course, but...
Assistant: I quite understand. More recently they've started making the Baptist model in Charismatic. Would that interest you at all?
Customer: Hmmmm. I have heard that the Charismatic is a little - well - unstable.
Assistant: Yes, I have to admit that they have been known to split occasionally, but of course our warranty would cover that - and really, they're making them much better these days. Really reduced the number of defects. Oh, except for the ones with the Toronto Blessing option, of course. I wouldn't say this to everyone, but you clearly like a more conservative church, and the TBs are - well, they just haven't got the design right yet.
Customer: Yes, I'd heard that.
Assistant: Or there's this new line. Just coming into fashion. The Post-Evangelical. Not everybody's church, but for those who are starting to find the Charismatic a bit dated - after all, it was originally a 1970s design...
Customer: What features does that one have?
Assistant: They're still trying out various ones - it hasn't settled down yet. Liturgy - do you like liturgy?
Customer: Weeell...
Assistant: They don't all have liturgy. They mostly have the arts, though.
Customer: I can't say I really...
Assistant: And then there's spirituality. A sense of exploration and journeying. Questioning, without necessarily seeking after definite answers. Living life in a permanent state of uncertainty...
Customer: I don't think I should like that at all.
Assistant: No, no. I daresay you wouldn't. So, where did we get to?
Customer: You were showing me the Charismatic.
Assistant: Oh, yes, the Charismatic. Really very mainstream now, you know. Don't be put off by its resemblance to the Pentecostal.
Customer: Oh, I know better than that.
Assistant: Good. Though the Pentecostal is becoming very mainstream too, and if you wanted to look at a few I've got some out the back...
Customer: No, no, don't bother. I'll take this one.
Assistant: Thank you, sir. Cash or charge?
Customer: Oh, charge, please.
Assistant: There you are, sir. Have a good eternity.
Customer: You too.
Exit Customer.
quote:
I would argue that the majority of established religions use an element of mind/emotion control in varyin |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 09 2003 : 11:16:18 PM
|
quote:
With regard to some of the 'bad practices' of JW's that you referred to in the previous post, is it not possible that some of these stories are from disgruntled former believers who have reason to attack their former religion, in the same way as we hear a lot of negative comments from people who have been in a Catholic school system for example.
That's a good point, Adele. Certainly, a good deal of sour grapes rather than truthful or sincere rejection/condemnation drives lots of critics, especially among the crowd of former parochial *schoolboys & schoolgirls*, & motives for lashing out ought to be considered. However, in this case I was not citing personal accounts from former members (it's not a religion so I won't put it in the same category) but standard practice & methodology as practiced by those within the WatchTower organization.
quote:
Incidentally, just for the record, you should hear some of the debates between me and my friend, because I am SO playing Devil's Advocate here!!! I feel like I am in some kind of Debate Test right now, where I have to oppose and defend both points of view!!
Go you! How's your score?
quote:
A philosophy forum sounds like a good idea Lainey, although at the moment, I think there is room enough in the Lions Den.
Would you like a cookie to go with that high priced cup of coffee??!!
Always room at the Den - but our cup does runneth over with issues to dissect so the Philosophy Forum is good for more specific wranglings, apart from the current trends [Read: clash of civilizations as scripted by One Worlders] of societies. You know ... cat fights or last rites; your choice!
Cookie? Well, yeah. The company retirement plan is pitiful. |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 10 2003 : 07:01:55 AM
|
LMAO!!
I love the St Margaret's skit...that really made me laugh.
Ok seriously now...
I am still trying to work out why you will not see JW as a religion, because as yet, aside from individual beliefs and worship practices, the basis is the same - a belief in the Bible and one God, one Truth. (Am feeling like a dense person missing the obvious!) There are practices in every religion that we disagree with...you mentioned shunning for example, but someone equally might say that it is inappropriate to have statues in churches, or to wear a symbol of your religion, or to practice exorcism, or to excommunicate someone. Is it just that you believe that it JW's are under the influence of mind control, that determines it is not a cult?
Out of some of the debates I have had with my friend, I think that he would argue with you on the issue of non-thought. He has argued very strongly that the Bible has no contradictions, the truth is plain to see in it, and therefore, what the Bible says is non-negotiable. Is that the same thing?
I agree with you on the reject/embrace/escape point. But maybe occasionally, that is in the perception of the individual. Maybe, in certain cases, it is a personal psychological issue, rather than the result of cult pressure.
Just a couple of random thoughts....
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 12 2003 : 10:27:03 AM
|
Okay ... the fourth time in the past two days I have tried to post this.
******************
quote:
I love the St Margaret's skit...that really made me laugh.
Me, too. And I wasn't at all put off by the absence of a Kingdom Hall model!
quote:
I am still trying to work out why you will not see JW as a religion, because as yet,
aside from individual beliefs and worship practices, the basis is the same - a belief in the
Bible and one God, one Truth.
Thanks for letting me attempt to clarify. The distinction is complicated - mainly due to the usage of the term 'cult' & general lack of familiarity with JW beliefs, along with my failure to explain adequately. Again, regarding the term 'cult,' its true original meaning is positive so I use it hesitatingly. Nonetheless, it does have a more recent perjorative connotation, & for want of a better term, this is how I mean it;
religion by traditional definition is a system of shared beliefs & practices held with ardor & faith & manifested by moral virtues & charity that is centered on worship of a
creator(s) or the supernatural. A cult is a group of people who hold beliefs that either imitate or grow from an established religion (or an ecletic mix of religions) but deviate from the doctrines of that religion to the point of denial of its core beliefs, while also suppressing individual free will, employing deceptive means to attract members & manipulative controlling methods
to keep members, while claiming to be adherents of the faith. In this case, the Jehovah Witnesses are a cult of Christianity. They do falsely claim to be Christians (in fact, the ONLY true Christians) even though their *doctrines* are completely contrary
to Christianity.
Your definition of religion excludes all non-biblical/non-monotheistic religions from the
equation which is incorrect as far as defining a religion (true religion vs false religion is a
separate matter). Even so - if we were to use this definition, the JWs fail the test.
JWs, despite what they claim, do not have a belief in the Bible.
JWs, despite what they claim, do not have a belief in one God.
JWs, despite what they claim, do not believe in one Truth.
If you believe these three things about the WatchTower after having lengthy discussions with your friend (let's call him JW), there are three possibilities;
1) he is ignorant of the beliefs mandated by the governing body of the WatchTower Society
2) he is doing what every JW apologist does - lie or misrepresent.
3) you've never touched upon these three basic points in discussion & understandably assume them to be true. If so, ask JW;
1) Are the Witnesses Christian?
2) Do the Witnesses believe in the divinity of Christ?
3) Do the Witnesses believe in the Christian Trinitarian theology?
4) Are the Witnesses monotheistic?
5) Are the Witnesses' beliefs biblical?
6) Is the soul immortal?
7) Is JW one of the "144,000 elect predestined" to co-rule with the "physical Christ" or the "invisible spirit-body Christ" over the post-Armageddon eternal earth?
8) How does JW know the answer to #7?
9) Was Jesus Christ created?
10) What is 'soul sleep' & the return to nothingness?
11) Has the WatchTower repeatedly amended its "non-denominational teachings" or mangled Scripture to justify its proven & admitted errors?
12) Is Charles Taze Russell the founder of the WT Society?
13) Is Christ the founder of Christianity?
14) Was C T Russell a Presbyterian, then a Congregationalist, then an inspired Adventist before becoming "the mou |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 12 2003 : 10:57:34 AM
|
| You took the words out of my mouth again Lainey.I debate with JW's for a hobby.They usually cut me off real quick when the discussion gets intelligent.Anyway,what works for me is just ask them where did the 27 book canon of the New Testament come from? Who decided which books were in and which books were out.Remember,many N.T.books that are accepted now at one time in the 2nd century were out and many books that are out were accepted as N.T.I tell them about the councils of Hippo,Carthage,etc.Whoops,end of discussion,sounds too Catholic! Bye,Bye JW's. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 16 2003 : 7:56:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by securemann
You took the words out of my mouth again Lainey.I debate with JW's for a hobby.They usually cut me off real quick when the discussion gets intelligent.Anyway,what works for me is just ask them where did the 27 book canon of the New Testament come from? Who decided which books were in and which books were out.Remember,many N.T.books that are accepted now at one time in the 2nd century were out and many books that are out were accepted as N.T.I tell them about the councils of Hippo,Carthage,etc.Whoops,end of discussion,sounds too Catholic! Bye,Bye JW's.
Its important that we don't forget that the formation of the NT canon during the 2nd-4th centuries A.D. is evidence of the supreme authority of Scripture, not the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. What the Church did when she specified the contents of the canon, was to distinguish between the apostolic tradition and ecclesiastical tradition. J.B. Torrence wrote that "The canon means that the ecclesiastical tradition (however important and necessary) is subordinate to and not coordinate with Holy Scripture." Whereas apostolic tradition is coordinate with Holy Scripture. The Church thought it was important to gather the divinely inspired books together, thereby testifying to the supreme authority of these writings.
"...the church is 'built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles' [Eph. 2:20]. If the teaching of the prophets and apostles is the foundation, this must have had authority before the church began to exist. Groundless, too, is their subtle objection that, although the church took its beginning here, the writings to be attributed to the prophets and apostles nevertheless remain in doubt until decided by the church. For if the Christian church was from the beginning founded upon the writings of the prophets and the preaching of the apostles, wherever this doctrine is found, the acceptance of it--without which the church itself would never have existed-- must certainly have preceded the church. It is utterly vain, then, to pretend that the power of judging Scripture so lies with the church that its certainty depends upon churchly assent. Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not therby render authentic what is otherwise doubtdul or controversial. But because the church recognizes Scripture to be truth of its own God, as a pious duty it unhesitatingly venerates Scripture. As to their question-- How can we be assured that this has sprung from God unless we have recourse to the decree of the church?-- it is as if someone asked: Whence will we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste." -John Calvin, Institutes
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 16 2003 : 10:21:41 PM
|
| During the 2nd and 3rd centuries there was not a clear and definite canon of scripture.Hebrews,2Peter,2and3 John,James,Jude and Revelation were not even in the canon.You had other books like the Didache,The Shephard of Hermas and 1Clement that were in the canon.Scripture cannot define itself without the authority of the Church.The Church came first.That's why it took the authority of the Catholic Church to finally decide which books are canon and which are not.Otherwise,you would still have those spurious books in the canon.You need an infallible Church guided by the Holy Spirit to decide, otherwise it would be chaos.I studied many years on this.History proves it. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 17 2003 : 11:08:41 AM
|
I'm sorry, but with all due respect, history does not prove it. If anything history shows that the Roman Catholic Church is not infallible, and does not predate the Scriptures. Many historians agree that the Roman Catholic Church does not predate the 5th century A.D. In the 2nd Century the Greek word kanon, translated "standard" or "rule," came to be known as revealed truth, rule of faith.
The Belgic Confession, Article 5 ("The Authority of Scripture"):We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith. And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them - not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and because they prove themselves to be from God.
The Church did not originate the Bible. The Bible's (Scriptures')inspiration is divine, not ecclesiastical.
Leon Morris has given a concise answer to the question, "Did the Church originate the canon?":
"[The Bible] stands or falls because of its relationship to God, not to the Church. Moreover, any official action of the Church is late. We do not find it before the last part of the fourth century. But by then the canon had to all its intents and purposes been decided. The wording of the conciliar decisions is also significant here. The decrees are never in the form: "This council decrees that henceforth such and such books are to be canonical". The Church never attempted to confer canonicity. The Church did not give authority to the canon, rather it recognized its authority. Hence the conciliar decrees have the form: "This council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical". It would therefore be truer to say that the canon selected itself than that the Church selected it. Canonicity is something in the book itself, something that God has given to it, not a favoured status that the Church confers upon it."
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 17 2003 : 4:48:56 PM
|
| The Bible did not fall out of the sky all wrapped and decided.It took 350+ years to figure out the true books of scripture.I refer you to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage which did it.They were Roman Catholic Councils.Seems strange for a Church that did not predate the 5th century to be holding Councils in the 4th.I refer you to the Muratorian Canon in 190A.D.which excludes Hebrews,James,1Peter,2Peter and includes The Apocalypse of Peter and The Wisdom of Solomon.The Canon was far from complete and decided.If scripture decided itself,these books would still be in the canon.Now the question,Who had the authority to remove these books and decide on the others? By the way,the Roman Catholic Church started on Pentecost around 33A.D.Any good historian would know this. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 18 2003 : 11:05:28 AM
|
Ah! Excellent site, Jim. Church Militant - now that's a neglected duty.
I'd like to join this discussion with you guys later. |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 18 2003 : 7:39:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by securemann
The Bible did not fall out of the sky all wrapped and decided.It took 350+ years to figure out the true books of scripture.I refer you to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage which did it.They were Roman Catholic Councils.Seems strange for a Church that did not predate the 5th century to be holding Councils in the 4th.I refer you to the Muratorian Canon in 190A.D.which excludes Hebrews,James,1Peter,2Peter and includes The Apocalypse of Peter and The Wisdom of Solomon.The Canon was far from complete and decided.If scripture decided itself,these books would still be in the canon.Now the question,Who had the authority to remove these books and decide on the others? By the way,the Roman Catholic Church started on Pentecost around 33A.D.Any good historian would know this.
Yes, Hippo A.D. 393 and Carthage A.D. 397 and 416 identified a list of books that they believed were canon. They did not make them canon. Just because some people had reservations over certain books, does not mean the modern 27 book NT was not canon until so recognized. And just beacause some Apochryphal books were included in some early lists and the Vulgate until the 15th century, does not mean they were canon. The writer of the Muratorian Canon (which is a fragment) had reservations over books like the Apocalypse of Peter, which were subsequently rejected. Also, Rome put together no list of canonical books at this time. Rome was completely seperate. There was no universal church governed by Rome at this time in history.
Roman Catholics claim that unless we have an infallible Church infallibly declare what books are canonical and which are not, we can't have an authoritative Scripture. If such an infallible decree is necessary, why didn't Rome, the pope, or any council infallibly tell the Church what was the canon for 1,500 years. The Roman See did not express its opinion on the question of the canon until the Council of Florence (1439-1443) when efforts were made to re-unify the Western and Eastern churches. The first time that Rome dogmatically and officially defined the content of the canon as an article of faith was at the Council of Trent (1546), over 1,500 years after Christ. The Western Church existed for over 1,500 years before Rome did what Rome claims is absolutely necessary to have a certain scriptural authority in the Church. Where was the scriptural authority Rome claims to have?
"they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles." -Firmillian, Bishop of Caeserea, 3rd century A.D. Epistle 74:6
History shows that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until A.D. 140-150. The Roman church was organized under a college of presbyters or presbyter-bishops, rather than a single bishop. No evidence exists for any claims to jurisdictional supremecy by Rome in the first century. In the late second century and early third century A.D., we find the first historical instance of Roman bishops claiming any type of jurisdictional priority outside of Rome. Up until the time of Constantine, the bishop of Rome was in no sense a pope and laid no claim to the position of pope. Between A.D. 190-95 Victor attempted to sever communion with sister churches over the dating of Easter observance, his actions had no effect. In the 3rd century A.D., Stephen was at odds with Cyprian of Carthage over the rebaptism of lapsed christians. Cyprian's writings clearly show he did not believe that Stephen in Rome had any authority over Carthage. It was not until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire with the fall of Rome in the 5th century, that we find a pope in Rome gaining any kind of authority (in |
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 18 2003 : 11:04:29 PM
|
| CT,I agree that there is much to write on this subject and I can only refer you to the web site I provided.I have many writings over the course of my studies and would be very time comsuming.I will leave you with the great Protestant writer,JND Kelly on the subject of Peter being in Rome.He stated: "It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome.Although the NT appears silent about such a stay,it is supported by 1Peter 5:13,where "Babylon" is a code name for Rome and by the strong case for the linking the Gospel of Mark,who as Peter's companion is said to have derived its substance from him,with Rome." Also Pope ClementI (91-101) wrote a letter of remonstrance addressed c.96 to the church at Corinth,he being the leading presbyter-bishop in Rome.The apostle John was alive at this time and showed no objections to Clement's authority as pope.I know,this can go on and on but it's fun.Take care. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 18 2003 : 11:32:12 PM
|
| Hmm..You said that Cyprian of Carthage stated that Rome had no authority over Carthage? Why would he state in 256,"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Cyprian,Epistulae 59 (55) 14. This is an awful strong statement by someone who supposingly thought Rome had no juice. Yeah,they argued back then and had attitudes,but when everything got down to the nitty-gritty,Rome spoke,case closed. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 19 2003 : 10:33:38 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by securemann
Hmm..You said that Cyprian of Carthage stated that Rome had no authority over Carthage? Why would he state in 256,"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Cyprian,Epistulae 59 (55) 14. This is an awful strong statement by someone who supposingly thought Rome had no juice. Yeah,they argued back then and had attitudes,but when everything got down to the nitty-gritty,Rome spoke,case closed.
I find nothing in Cyprian's statement which suggests "the very seat of Peter" is Rome. Roman Catholics like to project later developments of the church back in time, which can't be done. Cyprian is saying apostolic faith is derived from the apostles (Peter), recorded in scripture, and is infallible.
Another example of a late development being projected back in history, is the medieval idea of two sources of tradition and scripture. For the first three centuries of Christianity, tradition and scripture were from the same source, and interepreted in the rule of faith. That is, tradition is coordinate with scripture, from scripture. Tradition and scripture cannot contradict each other and still have authority. In the 4th and 5th centuries you find a couple unclear statements by Basil and Augustine, which might suggest they viewed tradition as coming from a seperate source, but this idea is really a medieval development, for the Roman Church to justify their contradictory actions. |
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 19 2003 : 11:33:09 AM
|
As to whether Peter was in Rome since A.D. 42, as Catholics claim, certainly there is some limited evidence suggesting Peter might have been in Rome, but the contradicting evidence is stronger. We will never be absolutely sure with the evidence we have, but how can Rome make such a claim.
In Paul's epistle to the Romans dated about A.D. 58, he greets some 26 people by name. Peter is not one of them. If Peter had been in Rome since A.D. 42, don't you think Paul would send a greeting to him?
While imprisoned in Rome, Paul never mentions being visited by Peter.
Peter ministered heavily among the Jews, not the gentiles. Acts mentions Peter in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and Antioch, but not Rome.
Irenaeus' (ca. 130-200) list of 12 bishops of Rome does not list Peter.
There a several instances where Peter is mentioned in places far from Rome during the 40s and 50s A.D.
And nowhere in Scripture is Peter designated as having supreme authority over any of the other apostles. And yes I know about the Roman Catholic claims about the "upon this rock" passage of Scripture. |
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 19 2003 : 11:41:50 AM
|
| The episode of Pope Clement I was no late development in history projected back in time in order to justify the Bishop of Rome's authority.The first act of intervention by the Bishop of Rome and the Church of Rome was in 96 A.D. to the Church at Corinth where fierce dissensions had broken out and some presbyters had been deposed.Pope Clement drafted the letter because he was the leading Presbyter/Bishop.After setting out the principle on which the orderly succession of bishops and deacons rests and tracing it back to Jesus Christ,it called for the reinstatement of the expelled presbyters.Most important about this incident is that St.John the apostle was still alive and closer to the Church at Corinth.St.John did not interfer but the Bishop of Rome did.It would have been feasible for the apostle John to interfer being that Rome was further away.But Pope Clement knowing his position from St.Peter took the lead.No objections from St.John who did not even get involved.The letter from Pope ClementI was widely read in Christian antiquity.It was sometimes treated as part of the NT.This is early history and is not something that happened later and put back in time in order to justify power.Yes,the Bishop of Rome had authority even way back when. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 19 2003 : 11:59:45 AM
|
| Irenaeus? Near the end of the second century,Irenaeus mentioned that Matthew wrote his Gospel "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church".He said the two departed Rome,perhaps to attend the Council of Jerusalem,and he noted that Linus was named as Peter's successor- that is,the second Pope-and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus) and then Clement of Rome. (Irenaeus,Adversus haereses 3,3,3.) |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 19 2003 : 12:12:08 PM
|
You guys are just killing me.
For now, with a promise to prove your assertions wrong through Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, the Writings of the Fathers, & History, CT, not only was Peter in Rome, he was martyred in Rome. Not only was Peter 'the Rock' of the Church as spoken & chosen by Christ, his supremacy as Vicar of Christ & the Petrine Succession remains to this day.
Feed my lambs.
Feed my lambs.
Feed my sheep. |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 19 2003 : 12:24:56 PM
|
| Clement of Alexandra wrote at the turn of the third century.A fragment of one of his works is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History,the first history of the Church.Clement wrote,"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 for a long time his follower and remembered his sayings,should write down what had been proclaimed". (Fragment in Eusebius Pamphilius,Historia ecclesiastica 6,14,1.) |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.48 seconds |
 |
|
Religion vs Cult
