As with legend generally, an amount of truth exists, embellished with layers of fiction. Such a seat did exist; when a pope took possession of his cathedral, St. John Lateran in Rome, he traditionally sat on two ancient chairs of porphyry, the sedia stercoraria. Both had holes. The reason for the holes is disputed, but as both the seats and their holes predated the Pope Joan story, and indeed Catholicism by centuries, they clearly have nothing to do with a need to check the sex of a pope. It has been speculated that they originally were Roman bidets or imperial birthing stools, which because of their age and imperial links were used in ceremonies by popes intent on highlighting their own imperial claims (as they did also with their Latin title, Pontifex Maximus).
The myth of Pope Joan was discredited by David Blondel, a mid-17th century Protestant historian, who suggested that Pope Joan's legend may have originated in a satire against Pope John XI. Blondel, through detailed analysis of the claims and suggested timings, argued that no such events could have happened. Among the evidence discrediting the Pope Joan story, is
Papal processions did not travel down the processional route where the supposed birth took place at Easter.
No archival documentation exists of such an event.
The 'testicle seat' which popes supposedly sat on to have their masculinity ascertained long predates the era of 'Pope Joan' and has nothing to do with a requirement that a pope have his testicles checked.
Pope St. Leo IV reigned from 847 until his death in 855 whereupon Pope Benedict III reportedly succeeded him within a matter of weeks. This would make it impossible for her to have reigned from 855-858. However supporters of the Pope Joan theory would both question the official records of Papal succession and attribute most of the activities of Benedict to Joan.
The timing of the first appearance of the story coincides with the death of Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, who had been in conflict with the papacy. The general consensus of historians is that the 'Pope Joan' story is an anti-papal satire timed to link with the papacy's clash with the Holy Roman Empire, centring on three medi?l Catholic fears;
a sexually active pope;
a woman in a position of dominant authority over men;
deception at the very heart of the Church.
However, what may have started as satire ended up accepted as reality
I have long since lost my high school church history book in fact I doubt we ever got to keep them as I remember. But this is common knowledge even the priest Father Thomas who taught us knew this. I'm sure the textbook is out of print by now but it was simply called Church History I believe. Okay so maybe there are some typos in the information above I'll give you that. Does that make the truth that it happened any less valid? I guess if you don't get all of the dates right then that means it never happened I'm sure those molested will be happy to know that. Speaking of logically flawed and intellectually dishonest it is hardly just a few as you imply it is years and years of Pope's and it is still rampant today in the church.
When you quote something that resembles a Chick tract and don't put it in quotes or don't give it credit, what am I supposed to say?
As to "getting a few dates right" and "spelling errors", the stuff you posted about Pius XI was factually scandalous and inaccurate. Not missed dates or misspelt names (not like I dogged you for spelling it PIOS XI). Clement VII was not this "Robert of Geneva." So whatever "Robert of Geneva" did had nothing to do with Clement VII. Sorry, I am not being the spelling police here, but the fact is that if you have the fundamental facts wrong, why should I concern myself with the rest of the stuff you say?
As I said to Trefor,
quote:
In a 2,000 year history, with about 1/2 of that where the Papacy was in fact a major European power, there could be no doubt that covetous men would try and succeed from time to time in getting into the office through simony or other methods.
As to your question, "Does that make the truth that it happened any less valid?" I don't see any truth in there to be valid or invalid. Frankly, I just see garbage in that tract you quoted. Even where some facts are accurate, the context is simply wrong.
For example, Pope Stephen VI, who ordered the trial of Pope Formosus, was killed by strangulation only a few months later. His papacy was extremely brief and all actions taken during that papacy were undone by a successor, Pope Theodore II. Benedict IX was an SOB...he was named Pope at age 20, btw, not 12, fortunately he resigned and spent the rest of his days in penance from within an abbey. It really gets to be more interesting when you deal in facts and not in "Jack Chick" history.
"Again, anti-Catholic sentiment has some deep roots...in many circles it makes it easier to believe the bad rather than research the facts."
But which 'facts' from which researchers do we accept?
On one hand we have numerous documents which support anti-popes, female popes, homosexual-popes, indulgences vendors, selling sainthood canonizations, and the inquisition.
Yes we also know that there exist many who would also insist that none of these things ever happened.
I don't know, Galen. Which version of anti-Masonic, Illuminadi, New World Order, documentation should we accept?
For me, I try, before going with something that violates common sense, I generally try to follow fairly common academic criteria for judging the reliability of the document...Does the author cite his sources, does he/she depend mostly upon primary sources or secondary sources? Is what is being alleged at least consistent with past history...or does it diverge? (Not to say that divergent views aren't acceptable, but their documentation and logic need to be flawless if they are the case) Has the document been peer reviewed? A bunch of criteria. Encyclopedia Brittanica is generally pretty well documented. Some Wikipedia documents are pretty good, others were written with some fairly apparent bias (fortunately, the Wikipedia accepts challenges to articles and those articles that are in dispute are so identified). Believe it or not, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a remarkably good source. They identify the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Galen, its not that I won't accept something that I personally don't agree with; I just want to check it for myself to make sure it makes sense.
Having said that, though, Jack Chick tracts (and other documents of that ilk) really don't meet that standard.
These accounts were presented as church history in a Catholic high school. Now if anyone would want to weasle out of these as being true, One would think it would be there. If a Catholic priest in a Catholic school believes that they are true one would think that just maybe they would know.
OK, and, the point is that what you quoted was off of some geocities page. I am assuming you likely went to Catholic High School back in the 60s or 70s...a long, long time ago. It wouldn't surprise me that after how many years in TWI and (then what?), you'd remember portions of that history that were the ugly. Yes, White Dove, there has been ugly. I'm not denying that. I would find it very hard to believe that you would have licensed teacher (ordained?) of Church History present the history of the papacy in the way that this geocities page presented it. I'm not trying to insult you, but, face it, 25-40 years ago is a long, long time to depend upon memory of a boring class that you probably hated at the time. And, likewise, I am not saying that your teacher didn't present it in just the way you expressed it in your initial post...but I'd more likely attribute it to other things.
Hey, I'll grant you that 2 or 3 of those on your list were pretty ugly. You will note that a minority of popes were identified as "Pope Blessed" or "Pope Saint" after their deaths. All of them were human, with human weaknesses. A few out of the 263 were just downright evil.
There have been some real "winners" elected as President of the United States. Does that mean that the presidency should be abolished? Or that the United States itself should be abolished? Or that the United States itself is an evil entity?
Yeah, he produced comic strip tracts. He also produced a lot of other stuff too. The section focusing on Catholicism is not quite as sophisticated and subtle as, say, Babylon Mystery Religion.
He also had a small section of Freemasonry, as well.
Bottom line for him is that if you don't subscribe to his particular views (the KJV is the inspired Word of God, ya know), you are instantly going to h3ll.
Bottom line is that, in a Jack Chick world, there is a grave conspiracy where Catholics and Masons are working together with Islamists to rule the world and cast all Christians into the pit of hell. So, when I see some virulent anti-Catholic garbage, I simply identify it as a Jack Chick "truth." Usually I do it only in my own thinking, but decided to do so publically this time.
"Bottom line is that, in a Jack Chick world, there is a grave conspiracy where Catholics and Masons are working together with ..."
LOL
It would be cool to see the Catholics and Freemasons agree on anything. There is just soo much bad blood between the two.
The only thing that I know of that would get a law-abiding mass-attending Catholic Italian to stick a ice-pick through your ribs, is to hear that someone is a freemason. The RCs really indoctrinate and throw it on thick in some countries, how evil the Freemasons are. Even after most of Europe was helped through-out WWII, by Freemasonry.
On the other hand, Freemasonry does have a long history of being prosecuted by Papal decree. After so many of the cathedrals were built the prosecution really only started in the 1300's but it did get worse as the centuries went by.
No, I dont foresee the two ever agreeing on anything.
It would be cool to see the Catholics and Freemasons agree on anything. There is just soo much bad blood between the two.
Well, we could probably agree that this particular conspiracy theory linking Freemasonry and Catholicism in some grand cabal is a bunch of crap. That's got to count for something!
OK, and, the point is that what you quoted was off of some geocities page. I am assuming you likely went to Catholic High School back in the 60s or 70s...a long, long time ago. It wouldn't surprise me that after how many years in TWI and (then what?), you'd remember portions of that history that were the ugly. Yes, White Dove, there has been ugly. I'm not denying that.
Mark Perhaps you have missed my point I will give it one more try. I dont dislike Catholics as people, as I said I was raised one and for 12 years went to Catholic school. ALL three of my Aunts were Nuns, Sisters Of Charity. I'm not an expert but I do know a little about the Roman Catholic Church.
I would find it very hard to believe that you would have licensed teacher (ordained?) of Church History present the history of the papacy in the way that this geocities page presented it.
If I had the book I would mail it to you but I don't. I think that Father Thomas is also gone or I would mail him to you. But I must warn you he was a golden goves boxing champ in his prior life. so if ya screw up you wont get beat with the paddle like the other teachers do. You will have to put on the gloves and get on the mats with him so he can bloody your face. I'm sure today this would never fly though.
I do remember his class well though for two reasons the first is that I got my only A in school in his class. The second is that it showed me what I suspected all along. That I needed to get away from this abusive, unbiblical,man made religion. I did not know it was a cult then I don't think the word was even used then.
I'm not trying to insult you, but, face it, 25-40 years ago is a long, long time to depend upon memory of a boring class that you probably hated at the time. And, likewise, I am not saying that your teacher didn't present it in just the way you expressed it in your initial post...but I'd more likely attribute it to other things.
Which is your choice. But I don't! Not surprised that is the norm , everything unflattering about the church had to come from the Way. Obviously they had no love for churches but with a history like this I would not either. But I was the one who was there so you will not convince me that what I heard,read and was taught was not true. Seeing as you were not there.
Hey, I'll grant you that 2 or 3 of those on your list were pretty ugly. You will note that a minority of popes were identified as "Pope Blessed" or "Pope Saint" after their deaths. All of them were human, with human weaknesses. A few out of the 263 were just downright evil.
There have been some real "winners" elected as President of the United States. Does that mean that the presidency should be abolished? Or that the United States itself should be abolished? Or that the United States itself is an evil entity?
Well we disagree I think it is more than a few. But like the Way there are good people everywhere that is why I did not vote in the poll. But I do seperate the "church" and the people, the "structure" is evil. It has a history of evil, death, rape ,murder, greed,torture,and pedophilia. It has been there from the early days and it remains today, it is documented in it's history. They just have gotten better at covering it up. Well until lately.... I see nothing Godly in it's practice so My choice is to have no part of it.
I see nothing Godly in it's practice so My choice is to have no part of it.
And that, sir, is ultimately your choice. And as long as you're happy with that choice, it is certainly not my place to question that opinion. Nor is it my place to question the choices you've made in your life.
My purpose in responding to your earlier posts was simply to correct, or to place into context, some items identified as "facts." Once facts are brought out and placed into context, then we are all entitled to draw the appropriate conclusions and form our own opinions based upon those facts.
As I said in an earlier post (not addressed to you), there are always a minimum of three versions of truth when dealing with people. One version of truth each active participant sincere observations, more versions for the sincere observations of outside observers (eyewitnesses), and then the "objective" truth, which is formed through a synthesis of all of those observations and the forensic physical remnants gathered regarding the situation.
I don't know Mark to me truth is not all that complicated.
It Is Or It Isn't * It happened or it didn't * It was said or it wasn't * It was done or It was not done. If you have three versions then you have not the truth you may have part truth.
Anyway
Speaking of doing I may just run by the old school and see if they have a copy of The Church History Book under Antiques in the library.
What a powerful post from Wade and Jones you placed above. I live in a town where there is literally a church on every corner and in which everyone is expected to belong to a certain church home. So far I haven't tossed myself or my children into the label game yet but Vacation Bible School is just around the corner. We'll see what this year churns up.
I don't know Mark to me truth is not all that complicated.
It Is Or It Isn't * It happened or it didn't * It was said or it wasn't * It was done or It was not done. If you have three versions then you have not the truth you may have part truth.
Anyway
Speaking of doing I may just run by the old school and see if they have a copy of The Church History Book under Antiques in the library.
White Dove,
In the book of Deuteronomy, it says: "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death." (Deut 17:6 AV) "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." (Deut 19:15 AV)
This principle is re-iterated in Matthew, 2 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Hebrews.
There is a good reason for this principle. A person's observations may not be objectively correct. A person's memory may not be objectively correct. Subjectively, the person sees what he sees; he hears what he hears. But those sights and those sounds are processed through the filter of the person's past experiences, prejudices, and learning.
While you are right, truth is fairly simple, making sure you are dealing with truth, rather than somebody's individual, and potentially flawed, observation, is a little more complex. After all, if observation was perfect, illusionists would be out of business.
BTW, if you can get a title and author for that book, I'd be interested in learning it so that I can try to track it down for myself.
nonsense !!!!! say 3 "hail marys" and 4 "our fathers" for even thinking such a thing. i said "about" the only people i know (love you, dear) and was really referring to all my relatives and every friggin person in my neighborhood and where i work and where i shop and where i........ ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
love you, shar
* throw in a good "act of contrition" while you're at it
Ok Mark I agree but what you are describing is the "process" or "search" for the truth. But not "the truth" itself. 1+1 =2 if you believe it or not,confirm it or not the truth still "is" What three witnesses confirmed God's truth in the begining?
I will try to find out the info but it most likely is a long shot this many years on.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
3
9
13
Popular Days
Apr 15
26
Apr 14
12
Apr 16
10
Apr 17
4
Top Posters In This Topic
Galen 6 posts
mstar1 3 posts
WhiteDove 9 posts
markomalley 13 posts
Popular Days
Apr 15 2005
26 posts
Apr 14 2005
12 posts
Apr 16 2005
10 posts
Apr 17 2005
4 posts
LG
Doctrines you don't accept do not a cult make, Paradiseden.
Or, if they do, then I can just as well place you in a cult.
The Christian Church (all persuasions) has spawned much evil and more good over the past twenty centuries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Galen,
Since we are quoting things,
Extracted from, Wikipedia Entry, "Pope Joan."
Again, anti-Catholic sentiment has some deep roots...in many circles it makes it easier to believe the bad rather than research the facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
When you quote something that resembles a Chick tract and don't put it in quotes or don't give it credit, what am I supposed to say?
As to "getting a few dates right" and "spelling errors", the stuff you posted about Pius XI was factually scandalous and inaccurate. Not missed dates or misspelt names (not like I dogged you for spelling it PIOS XI). Clement VII was not this "Robert of Geneva." So whatever "Robert of Geneva" did had nothing to do with Clement VII. Sorry, I am not being the spelling police here, but the fact is that if you have the fundamental facts wrong, why should I concern myself with the rest of the stuff you say?
As I said to Trefor,
As to your question, "Does that make the truth that it happened any less valid?" I don't see any truth in there to be valid or invalid. Frankly, I just see garbage in that tract you quoted. Even where some facts are accurate, the context is simply wrong.
For example, Pope Stephen VI, who ordered the trial of Pope Formosus, was killed by strangulation only a few months later. His papacy was extremely brief and all actions taken during that papacy were undone by a successor, Pope Theodore II. Benedict IX was an SOB...he was named Pope at age 20, btw, not 12, fortunately he resigned and spent the rest of his days in penance from within an abbey. It really gets to be more interesting when you deal in facts and not in "Jack Chick" history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Mark:
"Again, anti-Catholic sentiment has some deep roots...in many circles it makes it easier to believe the bad rather than research the facts."
But which 'facts' from which researchers do we accept?
On one hand we have numerous documents which support anti-popes, female popes, homosexual-popes, indulgences vendors, selling sainthood canonizations, and the inquisition.
Yes we also know that there exist many who would also insist that none of these things ever happened.
So whose version of history is 'fact'?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I don't know, Galen. Which version of anti-Masonic, Illuminadi, New World Order, documentation should we accept?
For me, I try, before going with something that violates common sense, I generally try to follow fairly common academic criteria for judging the reliability of the document...Does the author cite his sources, does he/she depend mostly upon primary sources or secondary sources? Is what is being alleged at least consistent with past history...or does it diverge? (Not to say that divergent views aren't acceptable, but their documentation and logic need to be flawless if they are the case) Has the document been peer reviewed? A bunch of criteria. Encyclopedia Brittanica is generally pretty well documented. Some Wikipedia documents are pretty good, others were written with some fairly apparent bias (fortunately, the Wikipedia accepts challenges to articles and those articles that are in dispute are so identified). Believe it or not, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a remarkably good source. They identify the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Galen, its not that I won't accept something that I personally don't agree with; I just want to check it for myself to make sure it makes sense.
Having said that, though, Jack Chick tracts (and other documents of that ilk) really don't meet that standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Mark
These accounts were presented as church history in a Catholic high school. Now if anyone would want to weasle out of these as being true, One would think it would be there. If a Catholic priest in a Catholic school believes that they are true one would think that just maybe they would know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
White Dove:
OK, and, the point is that what you quoted was off of some geocities page. I am assuming you likely went to Catholic High School back in the 60s or 70s...a long, long time ago. It wouldn't surprise me that after how many years in TWI and (then what?), you'd remember portions of that history that were the ugly. Yes, White Dove, there has been ugly. I'm not denying that. I would find it very hard to believe that you would have licensed teacher (ordained?) of Church History present the history of the papacy in the way that this geocities page presented it. I'm not trying to insult you, but, face it, 25-40 years ago is a long, long time to depend upon memory of a boring class that you probably hated at the time. And, likewise, I am not saying that your teacher didn't present it in just the way you expressed it in your initial post...but I'd more likely attribute it to other things.
Hey, I'll grant you that 2 or 3 of those on your list were pretty ugly. You will note that a minority of popes were identified as "Pope Blessed" or "Pope Saint" after their deaths. All of them were human, with human weaknesses. A few out of the 263 were just downright evil.
There have been some real "winners" elected as President of the United States. Does that mean that the presidency should be abolished? Or that the United States itself should be abolished? Or that the United States itself is an evil entity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
I see the phrase "Jack Chick" appearing many times.
I have not heard of this phrase, I googled it and came back with many pages of responses.
It would appear to be a person who writes and distributes comic books.
Mark-
Do you read a lot of this guy's stuff? Since you seem to be quoting him?
You seem to be refering to him, yet in a negative sense.
Are you attempting to atribute what other people say, as if those quotes came from your Jack Chick?
Since this guy appears to be your buddy, could you possibly explain your metaphor?
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Galen:
Yeah, he produced comic strip tracts. He also produced a lot of other stuff too. The section focusing on Catholicism is not quite as sophisticated and subtle as, say, Babylon Mystery Religion.
He also had a small section of Freemasonry, as well.
Bottom line for him is that if you don't subscribe to his particular views (the KJV is the inspired Word of God, ya know), you are instantly going to h3ll.
Bottom line is that, in a Jack Chick world, there is a grave conspiracy where Catholics and Masons are working together with Islamists to rule the world and cast all Christians into the pit of hell. So, when I see some virulent anti-Catholic garbage, I simply identify it as a Jack Chick "truth." Usually I do it only in my own thinking, but decided to do so publically this time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Mark:
"Bottom line is that, in a Jack Chick world, there is a grave conspiracy where Catholics and Masons are working together with ..."
LOL
It would be cool to see the Catholics and Freemasons agree on anything. There is just soo much bad blood between the two.
The only thing that I know of that would get a law-abiding mass-attending Catholic Italian to stick a ice-pick through your ribs, is to hear that someone is a freemason. The RCs really indoctrinate and throw it on thick in some countries, how evil the Freemasons are. Even after most of Europe was helped through-out WWII, by Freemasonry.
On the other hand, Freemasonry does have a long history of being prosecuted by Papal decree. After so many of the cathedrals were built the prosecution really only started in the 1300's but it did get worse as the centuries went by.
No, I dont foresee the two ever agreeing on anything.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
catholics are:
about the only people i know -- and love
i can't get into the debate much since most of my feelings are due to personal experience
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I was raised Catholic -- and never even heard of the Freemasons, until after I was *out* of that church.
I must have missed more catechism classes than I thought I did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well we disagree I think it is more than a few. But like the Way there are good people everywhere that is why I did not vote in the poll. But I do seperate the "church" and the people, the "structure" is evil. It has a history of evil, death, rape ,murder, greed,torture,and pedophilia. It has been there from the early days and it remains today, it is documented in it's history. They just have gotten better at covering it up. Well until lately.... I see nothing Godly in it's practice so My choice is to have no part of it.
**Typo edit**
Edited by WhitedoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
FWIW:
Jack Chick Museum of Fine Art
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
White Dove, you said:
And that, sir, is ultimately your choice. And as long as you're happy with that choice, it is certainly not my place to question that opinion. Nor is it my place to question the choices you've made in your life.My purpose in responding to your earlier posts was simply to correct, or to place into context, some items identified as "facts." Once facts are brought out and placed into context, then we are all entitled to draw the appropriate conclusions and form our own opinions based upon those facts.
As I said in an earlier post (not addressed to you), there are always a minimum of three versions of truth when dealing with people. One version of truth each active participant sincere observations, more versions for the sincere observations of outside observers (eyewitnesses), and then the "objective" truth, which is formed through a synthesis of all of those observations and the forensic physical remnants gathered regarding the situation.
Pax
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I don't know Mark to me truth is not all that complicated.
It Is Or It Isn't * It happened or it didn't * It was said or it wasn't * It was done or It was not done. If you have three versions then you have not the truth you may have part truth.
Anyway
Speaking of doing I may just run by the old school and see if they have a copy of The Church History Book under Antiques in the library.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Speaking of Churches my old friend Peter Wade sent this to me today.
Behind closed doors!
Easter has passed and Pentecost lies ahead. But where do we find
the early church?
This was the most dangerous period in the life
of the followers of Jesus, and it is the most dangerous period in
the life of believers still.
I recently was able to obtain a secondhand copy of a book on
Pentecost titled "The Christ of Every Road" (1930), personally
signed by the author, E. Stanley Jones, a popular devotional
writer from the 1920s to the 1960s. A missionary to India, he
conducted retreats around the world and was a sought-after
speaker. The rest of this article are extracts from this book.
"The Church [universal] is not living in Pentecost. It is living
between Easter and Pentecost. Easter stands for life wrought out,
offered; Pentecost stands for life appropriated, lived to its
full, unafraid and clearly and powerfully witnessing to an
adequate way of human living. The Church stands hesitant between
the two. Hesitant, hence comparatively impotent. Something big has
dawned on its thinking--Christ has lived, taught, died and risen
again and has commissioned the Church with the amazing Good News.
But something big has yet to dawn in the very structure, make-up,
and temper of the life of the Church--Pentecost. Easter has
dawned; Pentecost has not. If the Church would move up from that
between-state to Pentecost, nothing could stop it--nothing! Now it
is stopping itself by its own ponderous machinery...
"But suppose for a moment there had been no Pentecost. The
situation would have been impossible for them. Here were men
commissioned to proclaim a crucified Jesus as Saviour and Master;
they were to replace the present world-order with a new world-
order: the kingdom of God, and all this in face of a deep
hostility--with their pre-Pentecost resources an impossible task.
Without this inner transformation and moral re-enforcement we
would expect to find them just where we do find them: It was
evening on that day, "the first day of the week, when the doors
were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews"
[John20:19]. A Church behind closed doors! A Church living
between Easter and Pentecost is always behind closed doors...
"They had the message the world needed and awaited, the one
message that would heal the sin-hurt of the world, and yet that
message was shut up behind closed doors. The only power that could
and did get them out from behind those closed doors and loose them
and their message upon the world was Pentecost. It was not enough
for them to see him and to hear him say, "Peace be unto you: As my
Father hath sent me, even so send I you." His presence and his
commission were not enough, for a week later we find them still
behind closed doors. His assurances and his commission did not get
them out. Only Pentecost got them out. For up to Pentecost the
whole thing was on the outside of them, objective, something
spoken, acted before them. It wasn't IN them. At Pentecost this
gospel came within them, became identical with them--what they had
heard and seen and what they were became one, hence they became
irresistible apostles of a mighty passion.
"The Church is behind closed doors of mere routine of ritual for
fear of breakdown. The early Church was spontaneous. No one knew
what it was going to do next. Now you can anticipate what the
Church will do. It is in ruts, and "a rut is a grave with both
ends knocked out". But ruts are so safe! When life ceases to be
spontaneous we groove it in order to be sure we have something. We
do have something, but whether it is life is a question. On my
trip to America I was struck by the growing grandeur of the houses
of worship and the increasing ornateness of ritual and liturgy.
The feeling seemed to be that the millennium lay just on the other
side of an elaborate new church building, a vested choir, and
stately processions. Europe is filled with stately cathedrals and
stale Christianity, with religious processions and with religious
paralysis. No, this is not the way to life; and yet, feeling the
emptiness within, we add to the outer, hoping that the appearance
of life will make life appear. History says it does not.
Nevertheless, we close our doors behind "safe" ritual for fear of
breakdown...
"There was a time when the Christian Church celebrated Whitsunday,
the anniversary of the coming of the Spirit, more than it did
Christmas, the anniversary of the coming of Christ. Now Whitsunday
has largely dropped out. Did we find it was easier to celebrate
Christ's birth than it was to be born again? Was it easier to
commemorate his coming into the world than it was for us to go
with his message into the world? Did it cost less to give gifts at
Christmas than to give ourselves at Pentecost? Christmas is the
festival of God with us. Pentecost is the festival of God in us.
Is He more with us than in us?...
"There are four pillars upon which Christ's gospel rests: his
Life, his Cross, his Resurrection, and his Coming into the lives
of men--Pentecost. The gospel rests upon ALL FOUR. Take any one
away and you have a crippled gospel--a gospel insufficient to meet
human need. The theme of this book is Pentecost, but I dare not
discuss Pentecost except in the light of the other three, for
Pentecost isolated is Pentecost emasculated. It is true of any of
the others." -- E. Stanley Jones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharon
does that me u don't love me any more?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SlingShot
Whitedove,
What a powerful post from Wade and Jones you placed above. I live in a town where there is literally a church on every corner and in which everyone is expected to belong to a certain church home. So far I haven't tossed myself or my children into the label game yet but Vacation Bible School is just around the corner. We'll see what this year churns up.
Until then,
SS
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
White Dove,
In the book of Deuteronomy, it says: "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death." (Deut 17:6 AV) "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." (Deut 19:15 AV)
This principle is re-iterated in Matthew, 2 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Hebrews.
There is a good reason for this principle. A person's observations may not be objectively correct. A person's memory may not be objectively correct. Subjectively, the person sees what he sees; he hears what he hears. But those sights and those sounds are processed through the filter of the person's past experiences, prejudices, and learning.
While you are right, truth is fairly simple, making sure you are dealing with truth, rather than somebody's individual, and potentially flawed, observation, is a little more complex. After all, if observation was perfect, illusionists would be out of business.
BTW, if you can get a title and author for that book, I'd be interested in learning it so that I can try to track it down for myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
love you, shar
* throw in a good "act of contrition" while you're at it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Ok Mark I agree but what you are describing is the "process" or "search" for the truth. But not "the truth" itself. 1+1 =2 if you believe it or not,confirm it or not the truth still "is" What three witnesses confirmed God's truth in the begining?
I will try to find out the info but it most likely is a long shot this many years on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.