Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 161

Thread: Early Christian history

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    712
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 106 Times in 92 Posts

    Default Jewish king Agrippa the Great

    Let's continue to look in to the history of early Christian church, life of one of the most influential person in developed of the early Christian church - Jewish king Agrippa the Great

    Reign and death

    Accounts in Josephus

    Agrippa returned to Judea and governed it to the satisfaction of the Jews.

    His zeal, private and public, for Judaism is recorded by Josephus, Philo of Alexandria and the rabbis.
    Perhaps because of this, his passage through Alexandria in the year 38 instigated anti-Jewish riots.

    At the risk of his own life, or at least of his liberty, he interceded with Caligula on behalf of the Jews, when that emperor was attempting to set up his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem shortly before his death in 41. Agrippa's efforts bore fruit and persuaded Caligula to rescind his order thus preventing the Temple's desecration.

    After Passover in 44, Agrippa went to Caesarea, where he had games performed in honor of Claudius. In the midst of his speech to the public a cry went out, and Agrippa did not publicly react. At this time he saw an owl perched over his head. During his imprisonment by Tiberius a similar omen had been interpreted as portending his speedy release and future kingship, with the warning that should he behold the same sight again, he would die. He was immediately smitten with violent pains, scolded his friends for flattering him and accepted his imminent death. He experienced heart pains and a pain in his abdomen, and died after five days. (Herod Agrippa's views in regard to omens is not acceptable according to Rabbinical Judaism.) Josephus then relates how Agrippa's brother, Herod of Chalcis, and Helcias sent Aristo to kill Silas.

    From Josephus, Antiquities 19.8.2 343-361: "Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea he came to the city Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower; and there he exhibited spectacles in honor of Caesar, for whose well-being he'd been informed that a certain festival was being celebrated.

    At this festival a great number were gathered together of the principal persons of dignity of his province. On the second day of the spectacles he put on a garment made wholly of silver, of a truly wonderful texture, and came into the theater early in the morning. There the silver of his garment, being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays, shone out in a wonderful manner, and was so resplendent as to spread awe over those that looked intently upon him.

    Presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good) that he was a god; and they added,

    "Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature."

    Upon this the king neither rebuked them nor rejected their impious flattery. But he shortly afterward looked up and saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, just as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain arose in his belly, striking with a most violent intensity. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, "I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept what Providence allots, as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner." When he hadsaid this, his pain became violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went abroad everywhere that he would certainly die soon. The multitude sat in sackcloth, men, women and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king's recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground he could not keep himself from weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age and in the seventh year of his reign. He ruled four years under Caius Caesar, three of them were over Philip's tetrarchy only, and on the fourth that of Herod was added to it; and he reigned, besides those, three years under Claudius Caesar, during which time he had Judea added to his lands, as well as Samaria and Cesarea. The revenues that he received out of them were very great, no less than twelve millions of drachmae. But he borrowed great sums from others, for he was so very liberal that his expenses exceeded his incomes, and his generosity was boundless."


    Acts 12 relates that he was eaten by worms, after God struck him for accepting the praise of sycophants, comparing him to a god.


    The Jewish Encyclopedia has a different account of Agrippa's reign:

    Claudius, showed himself grateful to Agrippa for important services rendered him, and upon his accession, placed under his rule the remainder of Palestine, the territories of Samaria, Judea, and Idumæa, formerly governed by Archelaus.

    Loaded with honors and titles, Agrippa returned home, and the few remaining years of his benevolent sway afforded the people a brief period of peace and prosperity.

    The evil consequences of a ruler's unbridled passions and tyranny had been sufficiently evident to him in Rome, and they had taught him moderation and strict self-control. His people regarded him with love and devotion, because he healed with tender hand the deep wounds inflicted upon the national susceptibilities by brutal Roman governors.

    He ruled his subjects with compassion and friendliness. Like the ancestral Asmoneans from whom he sprang through his noble grandmother Mariamne, he honored the Law.


    Like the merest commoner, he carried his basket of first-fruits to the Temple; with the people he celebrated appropriately the Feast of Tabernacles, and he devoted to the sanctuary a golden chain with which Caligula had honored him. On one occasion, while in the street, he met a bridal procession which drew up to let him pass, but he halted and bade it take precedence. He sought to lighten taxation, remitting the impost on houses in Jerusalem. On the coins minted by him he carefully avoided placing any symbols which could offend the people's religious sentiment. Thus, prosperity and comfort seemed to be dawning anew for the Jews. The Romans, however, became jealous of this rising prosperity, and—sometimes covertly, sometimes openly—laid all manner of obstacles in his way. When he began to repair the fortifications of the capital, he was abruptly bidden to cease. His attempts to fraternize with neighboring peoples—vassals of Rome—were construed as portending rebellion.

    His sudden death at the games in Cæsarea, 44, must be considered as a stroke of Roman politics. His death, while in the full vigor of his years, was deeply lamented by his people, notwithstanding the fact that he had made many considerable concessions to heathen manners and customs.

    The Christians looked upon his death as a judgment for his undisguised hostility to their young community (Acts, xii.)."


    The Talmud also has a positive view of his reign: The Mishnah explained how the Jews of the Second Temple era interpreted the requirement of Deuteronomy 31:10–13 that the king read the Torah to the people.

    At the conclusion of the first day of Sukkot immediately after the conclusion of the seventh year in the cycle, they erected a wooden dais in the Temple court, upon which the king sat. The synagogue attendant took a Torah scroll and handed it to the synagogue president, who handed it to the High Priest's deputy, who handed it to the High Priest, who handed it to the king. The king stood and received it, and then read sitting.

    King Agrippa stood and received it and read standing, and the sages praised him for doing so. When Agrippa reached the commandment of Deuteronomy 17:15 that “you may not put a foreigner over you” as king, his eyes ran with tears, but they said to him, “Don’t fear, Agrippa, you are our brother, you are our brother!”

    The king would read from Deuteronomy 1:1 up through the shema (Deuteronomy 6:4–9), and then Deuteronomy 11:13–21, the portion regarding tithes (Deuteronomy 14:22–29), the portion of the king (Deuteronomy 17:14–20), and the blessings and curses (Deuteronomy 27–28). The king would recite the same blessings as the High Priest, except that the king would substitute a blessing for the festivals instead of one for the forgiveness of sin.
    (Mishnah Sotah 7:8; Babylonian Talmud Sotah 41a.)


    Account in the New Testament




    Coin of Herod of Chalcis, showing Herod of Chalcis with brother Agrippa I crowning Roman Emperor Claudius I.

    The "King" Herod mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 12, is identified as the same person as Herod Agrippa (though the Herod mentioned in Acts 13:1 refers to Herod Antipas).

    The identification is based in part on the description of his death, which is very similar to Agrippa's death in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews 19.8.2, although Josephus does not include the claim that "an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms."

    Further evidence is the identification of the ruler in Acts 12:1 as "Herod the king," since Agrippa is the only Herod who would have had authority in Jerusalem at that time.

    The description of Herod Agrippa as a cruel, heartless king who persecuted the Jerusalem church, having James son of Zebedee killed and imprisoning Peter, stands in contrast with Josephus' account of a kindly man.

    According to Josephus, he was a milder ruler than his grandfather Herod the Great, and Josephus records him as talking with and then forgiving a law student accused of political rabble rousing, rather than punishing him as his grandfather and some other Herods would have done.[citation needed]

    Christian scholars argue that the biblical account makes sense given that Agrippa had been raised with a strong Jewish identity. Agrippa would resent a movement begun during his absence from Judæa that tried to declare a man as divine.

    Blastus is mentioned in the New Testament as Herod's chamberlain. Herod Antipas, uncle and predecessor of Agrippa as ruler of Galilee and Peræa, is the Herod mentioned in the Gospels who authorized the execution of John the Baptist and played a role in the trial of Jesus.

    Herod Agrippa II, son of Herod Agrippa, was asked, with his sister Berenice, by the Roman Procurator of Judea, Porcius Festus, to assist in the mini-trial of the Apostle Paul.
    Last edited by Sagittarius; 04-20-2017 at 12:30 PM.
    "Truth has no expiry date. Lies do." ~ A.D. Williams

    "Error in history leads to the error in doctrine."

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    473
    Thanks
    125
    Thanked 74 Times in 67 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    And you don't know your Bible very well.

    Peter never made himself the leader. He never considered himself "first" (Protos).
    He became "first" because he served his fellow disciples.

    Jesus didn't ask ANY other Apostle to strengthen their brothers who have fallen away.
    He ONLY asked Peter (Luke 22:32) and Peter alone.

    Jesus didn't ask ANY other Apostle to Feed His Cheep and to tend His flock.
    He ONLY asked Peter (John 21:15-19) and Peter alone.

    The official title of the Pope is "Servant of the servants of God."
    If you are a Catholic (I sense you might be), I am sorry to inform you the "Church" as it stands today, is built on false premises.

    Do not take my word for it.

    First:
    Acts 15:13~21

    After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.
    Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.
    And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

    “‘After this I will return,
    and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
    I will rebuild its ruins,
    and I will restore it,
    that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
    and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
    says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’

    Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
    but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
    For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
    James was head of the "Church" in Jerusalem. Not Peter.
    I know you are going to scramble to dispute this, but, there it is.

    Second:

    Peter confirmed Paul's writings as Gospel.
    2 Peter 3:15~16
    And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
    You will eventually come back and protest about this, likely.

    Third:

    Peter was never in Rome as anything but maybe a tourist passing through, or, at the most, just a prisoner before execution. But certainly not long enough to be "Bishop of Rome." Why? He had no business there. Paul was apostle to the Gentiles. Peter to the Jews, and, while there was some cross-apostlization, Jesus placed them firmly where there duties lay.

    Acts 9:15
    But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.
    Gal 2:7-9
    On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
    This verse is the usual "proof" verse about the myth that Peter was in Rome:
    1 Pet 5:13
    She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son.
    With the good 'ol "Babylon the Great was the nickname for Rome." And while perhaps that is true, Peter did not say "Babylon the Great." Just "Bablyon." Then comes the "But, Peter was speaking code."

    Really? Peter?

    The man who denied Jesus 3 times? The man who stood up to the entire city of Jerusalem and boldly told them to take a leap? You think Peter would be so fearful after his lesson with Jesus to resort to code instead of boldly proclaiming where he was?

    I guess some people just have a poor opinion of the guy.

    But, that aside, let's examine that scripture: She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son.

    What does that tell you?

    Here is some interesting reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Fortress

    Extra hint: Look up where "Saint Mark" was when he died.

    Or, you can research the fact that Babylon (the original) was a quite real and heavily populated with Jews during the 1st Century, and as such, the most natural place for Peter to setting up shop--and the name even matches what is in his letter!

    REMEMBER: Do not take my word for this. Do your own research.

    But, the greatest failure is this:

    Fourth:

    The claim to be the "Church that Jesus founded" based on "apostolic succession."

    And, what a doozy that is! Remember Peter certifying Pauls writings as Gosplel?

    1 Corinthians 12:28
    And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.
    Oh, boy, indeed. Apostles come undisputedly first in the Church that Jesus founded.

    Who was the last of the apostles to die? By about 30 years, nonetheless.

    John.

    Why is he not in the "apostolic succession," when, by the word of GOD, John was the head of the Church that Jesus founded, as Paul made crystal clear in who was appointed first in the church?

    I know it's a lot to absorb.

    1 Tim 4:1~4
    Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
    Still fish on Fridays?

    Matthew 23:9
    And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
    Am I getting too picky now?

    Mind you, if you want to be Catholic, there's not much I or anyone else can do.

    But when you want to start with the "original church" or "Pope means" stuff and say it's Biblical, well, you need open eyes as to what you're claiming.

    Trust me. I have experience with this.

    Just stick to defending your biblical beliefs. Doctrines, traditions, all come and go. The Bible, as God's word, always remains.
    "You [the Father], the Only True God" -- Jesus Christ (1st Century CE)

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    127
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    So you whole position is built on the name of the man???!!!!! Really? Because his name is Peter which means the rock (not the Pope) you believe he was the first pope. Really??? Wow! The fact that those there did not hold him to be such is of no importance. The fact that someone else was in charge of the church, James, and not Peter even though Peter was there and did not protest, is not important. No, the man's name was Peter and therefore he was the Pope because he was named "Peter." Well, if that is all the evidence you need, why discuss it at all.
    Wrong.

    James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. He was not in charge of the “whole” Church.
    Where do you get this whopper from??

    Also – for all of your screeching about the name of “Kepha” – yes, it means “ROCK” – and there’s a reason for this: Because Jesus called Simon “Rock” and not his confession of faith.

    This is why Paul refers to Peter as “Cephas” and NOT his confession of faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Ah, it is the foundation of the wall and it was built on the 12 apostles. Just the wall and all of them. But this does not work for the vatican because then Peter is not the foundation and they do not have 12 Popes.
    And this is an immature response – at best.
    Just do the Scriptural math.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    Oh, I can play that game. The early church disagrees with you and for centuries. This teaching comes out of the pope, the first pontifux maximus, Constatine. The church fathers did not believe this. No one in the first century church honored Peter as such. HE was one of the 12. The church is built on Jesus.
    Looks like YOU need a little history lesson.
    Oh – I know you believe in the fairy tale that Constantine was the first Pope – but ALL of these writings are from the Early Church BEFORE Constantine was even born . . .

    Ignatius of Antioch
    You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

    Irenaeus
    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 successions 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, 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 (Against Heresies 3.2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

    Clement of Alexandria
    The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

    Tertullian
    The Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, NOT TO THE CHURCH; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

    Letter of Clement to James
    Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

    Cyprian
    With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
    The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . ON HIM HE BUILDS THE CHURCH, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, YET HE FOUNDED A SINGLE CHAIR [CATHEDRA], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but A PRIMACY IS GIVEN TO PETER, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE Church and ONE CHAIR. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).


    Oh – I know you believe in the fairy tale that Constantine was the first Pope – but ALL of these writings are from the Early Church BEFORE Constantine was even born . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    No I don't. But I am not so foolish as to think that because the man was named "peter" it means he was the Pope. The rest of the disciples who were there, all but one, obviously did not think so.
    James was the head of the church, not Peter. And Peter was there. He submitted to James.
    Of course not. Just read the whole passage and not delete the bits that talks of what Jesus is building his church upon and instead think it is because of what Peter's name was. That is absurd.
    And again – the NAME illustrates his ROLE in the Church. God NEVER gives meaningless titles.
    Just ask Adam and Eve - or Abraham and Jacob.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    The church was mainly and only in Jerusalem at first. The disciples were all there and James was in charge. Sorry but that is the truth. Peter went to Rome much later. You can read Acts if you don't think Luke was also to be rejected like you do the writings of most of the New Testament. What do you accept? Just the letters, 2 small ones, of Peter?
    REALLY??
    Where does the Bible make this claim??

    Unlike YOU – I don’t reject ANY of the Books of the Bible. We Catholics have 73 Books, whereas you Protestants only have 66.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    They were all commissioned by Jesus to do this. You think they just took it upon themselves to do so? Rev says all 12 were the foundation of the wall. The Bible says the church is built on the foundation of the apostles... apostelS.

    "Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone"

    The Christian church is built on the apostelS and prophets and Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone. Not Peter. No where is Peter alone mentioned. If Peter was the head of the church they would have indicated so in the history described in Acts. That thought that the Popes taught was never considered by those who heard Jesus talk to Peter. What is more, there is no evidence, no writings, no responsibilties described by anyone that Peter did anything at all beyond what the other apostles did. If he were the first Pope, there would be lots of evidence of this. There is none.
    HUH??
    I posted just a SMALL collection of Early Church writings that obliterate this moronic comment. There is PLENTY of Early Church evidence regarding Peter’s Papacy and Primacy ion the Church.

    Why don’t you try being honest, for a change??

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    Because only Peter was so weak as to deny Jesus three times to people who were just standing around. None of the others did and John was actually at the crucifixion. Peter was not. Peter was weak. John was not.
    They were ALL weak and they ALL hid in the Upper Room - for days.
    HOWEVER, Peter is the ONLY one Jesus prayed for to strengthen the others.
    Peter is the ONLY one whom Jesus asked to feed His sheep and tend His flock.

    Can you show me ANY other places in the Gospel where Jesus sets ANY of the other Apostles apart like this??
    Good luck . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    So you bulid your theology on one word, "first" because he was named first? Really? Jesus did not treat him any different than he did John or James. ANd James became the head of the church so there you are.
    Notice Peter is not named as first here. He is not named at all. But I see that you want to insert into the Bible, adding to Revelation (which is dangerous as God promises to add plagues to he who adds to the words of Revelation) what is not there and never was in the mind of anyone who was there. The teaching of the apostles was the foundation of the wall...just the wall although really it is the church. Jesus Himself is the foundation of the church, being the chief cornerstone upon which the whole is built. There is no teaching nor act nor anything from PEter you can produce that shows that he was special beyond the 12. And that is not the point. The false doctrine that Peter was the first pope was invented so men would obey the teaching of every Pope without fail. You know, PEter never taught that he was infallible, by the way. As I said, it is recorded that Paul rebuked him pubically and Peter took it. Why? Because real apostles of God are humble men open to correction. Those who insist they are infallible are not from God.
    Like I said before – just do the Scriptural math.

    Secondly – I’ve already given you ample evidence of Peter’s Primacy. Even many Protestant scholars no longer deny this because you simply cannot hide the truth.

    Finally – you don’t have any understanding of Papal infallibility. Your example of Paul’s rebuke of Peter is a perfect example of this. Paul rebuked him for his BEHAVIOR – not his Theology or doctrine.

    Nobody ever said Peter was sinless or impeccable. He was merely infallible in matters of faith and moral teaching. For cryin’ out loud – do some research before responding . . .

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Agape For This Useful Post:

    Sagittarius (04-20-2017)

  5. #114
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    33,249
    Thanks
    4,330
    Thanked 5,590 Times in 4,676 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    There is no historical reference where Peter was in charge of the church. What we do have is James in charge of the church, all of whom were in Jerusalem from some decades. The Christians were Jewish for the most part and all of them were in Jerusalem for some time where James was in charge. There is no reference where Peter was ever in charge. If he were, Luke would have mentioned it. As it were, Peter is mentioned in Acts but not in leadership beyond the rest of the apostles whom were the foundation of the teaching of the church, Jesus being the corner stone. (...built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.)

    No where did anyone report the foundation being Peter. Peter hardly wrote anything worth mentioning that the church took as scripture. The major contributers were John and Paul. This cannot be denied. Peter wrote two letters. John wrote a Gospel and 3 letters. Paul's works do not need to be discussed, he was so proliferic. PEter never wrote that he was in charge. He never appealed to his authority at all. Not once.

    But I know the Catholics have some kind of spiritual bondage and cannot see the truth of what was in history. So we can finish. You want the Pope to be in the place of PEter although his life, his duds, his behaviour would make Peter turn in his grave. Imagine Peter in that pointy hat waving an incense burning devise on a chain lighting candles, praying to Mary (Peter never even addressed Mary as far as we know) and the like. But if we look at pagan ceremonies, ah, there we see all of this.
    Last edited by Dottie; 04-20-2017 at 11:08 AM.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  6. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    127
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by An Onymous Brother View Post
    If you are a Catholic (I sense you might be), I am sorry to inform you the "Church" as it stands today, is built on false premises.

    Do not take my word for it.

    First:
    James was head of the "Church" in Jerusalem. Not Peter.
    I know you are going to scramble to dispute this, but, there it is.

    Second:
    Peter confirmed Paul's writings as Gospel.
    You will eventually come back and protest about this, likely.

    Third:
    Peter was never in Rome as anything but maybe a tourist passing through, or, at the most, just a prisoner before execution. But certainly not long enough to be "Bishop of Rome." Why? He had no business there. Paul was apostle to the Gentiles. Peter to the Jews, and, while there was some cross-apostlization, Jesus placed them firmly where there duties lay.





    This verse is the usual "proof" verse about the myth that Peter was in Rome:
    With the good 'ol "Babylon the Great was the nickname for Rome." And while perhaps that is true, Peter did not say "Babylon the Great." Just "Bablyon." Then comes the "But, Peter was speaking code."

    Really? Peter?

    The man who denied Jesus 3 times? The man who stood up to the entire city of Jerusalem and boldly told them to take a leap? You think Peter would be so fearful after his lesson with Jesus to resort to code instead of boldly proclaiming where he was?

    I guess some people just have a poor opinion of the guy.

    But, that aside, let's examine that scripture: She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son.

    What does that tell you?

    Here is some interesting reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Fortress

    Extra hint: Look up where "Saint Mark" was when he died.

    Or, you can research the fact that Babylon (the original) was a quite real and heavily populated with Jews during the 1st Century, and as such, the most natural place for Peter to setting up shop--and the name even matches what is in his letter!

    REMEMBER: Do not take my word for this. Do your own research.

    But, the greatest failure is this:

    Fourth:
    The claim to be the "Church that Jesus founded" based on "apostolic succession."

    And, what a doozy that is! Remember Peter certifying Pauls writings as Gosplel?


    Oh, boy, indeed. Apostles come undisputedly first in the Church that Jesus founded.

    Who was the last of the apostles to die? By about 30 years, nonetheless.

    John.

    Why is he not in the "apostolic succession," when, by the word of GOD, John was the head of the Church that Jesus founded, as Paul made crystal clear in who was appointed first in the church?

    I know it's a lot to absorb.

    Still fish on Fridays?

    Am I getting too picky now?

    Mind you, if you want to be Catholic, there's not much I or anyone else can do.

    But when you want to start with the "original church" or "Pope means" stuff and say it's Biblical, well, you need open eyes as to what you're claiming.

    Trust me. I have experience with this.

    Just stick to defending your biblical beliefs. Doctrines, traditions, all come and go. The Bible, as God's word, always remains.
    By your verbose rant - it’s painfully obvious that:
    1. You don’t know your Bible very well
    2. You don’t understand the Church.
    3. You are not a student of history.

    Let me start with your last woefully-ignorant sentence.
    Disciplines may come and go but Sacred Tradition does NOT. Sacred Tradition is what Jesus was talking about in John 16:12-15 and what Paul is writing about in 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2 and 1 Cor. 11:2. There is NO expiration date on Sacred Tradition.

    As for your claim that the Church is built on “false premises” – you didn’t give any evidence to back up that moronic statement.

    You, then, go on to expound on how James was the “Head” of the Church – not Peter.
    You quote from the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 – but you completely left out Peter’s opening judgement with which James merely agreed. Anti-Catholics ALWAYS do this to minimize Peter’s obvious leadership. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was earthly Head of the Church (Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:32, John 21:15-19).

    Each Bishopric had its succession. You go on to say that John was head of the Church, which is silly. There is NO evidence of this and Peter handed his Bishopric onto Linus – not John. Irenaeus makes this adamantly clear in his treatise Against Heresies in the 2nd century.

    I don’t know why you think I would have a problem with 2 Pet. 3:15-16 – other than the use of the word “Gospel.” Peter attributes Paul’s writings as “Scripture” – so keep that straight.

    Additionally – to say that Peter was “never” in Rome is a pathetic case of anti-Catholic denial. This fact is attested to UNANIMOUSLY by the Early Church Fathers, as was his mission in Rome. The city of Rome is dripping with evidence of Pete’s work there, his imprisonment and his execution by Nero. His bones lie beneath the main altar in St. Peter’s Basilica.

    Your perversion of 1 Tim. 4:1-4 is laughable – if not so tragically ignorant.
    John was writing about the GNOSTIC heretics – not the Catholic Church. The Gnostics forbade eating certain foods ALL the time. They forbade marriage. They perverted the gospel as YOU are doing.

    Not eating meat on Fridays follows Paul’s lesson of denial of the flesh that we draw closer to God (Romans 8:13, Col. 3:5, Gal. 5:24). Meat is not “forbidden” – just abstained from during Lent – and ONLY on Fridays and Ash Wednesday.

    Finally – your preposterous take on Matt. 23:9 means that we can’t call anybody Father is so Scripturally bankrupt, it’s almost difficult to know where to begin.

    Jesus is using hyperbole (exaggeration) to make a point and does so many times in Scripture. In the verse that precedes this (Matt: 23:8), Jesus tells us not to call people “Teachers”. Is Jesus telling us that we can’t call certain people "fathers" or “teachers” when they may actually be fathers or teachers? Absolutely NOT. He is telling us that no man is to be considered father above our Father in heaven and no person is to be considered teacher above our Teacher in heaven.

    Jesus was speaking about the Scribes and Pharisees who exalted themselves before all: “They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi” (Matt 23:6-7).

    Consider the following passages:
    - Jesus said, “Your FATHER Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
    - St. Stephen refers to "our FATHER Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
    - St. Paul speaks of "our FATHER Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
    - For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
    - "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a TEACHER of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7).
    - "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and TEACHER" (2 Tim. 1:11).
    - "God has appointed in the church first Apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERS" (1 Cor. 12:28).


    Your final claim that you have “experience” with all of this is comical, judging by your complete ignorance on the subject.

  7. #116
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    127
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    There is no historical reference where Peter was in charge of the church. What we do have is James in charge of the church, all of whom were in Jerusalem from some decades. The Christians were Jewish for the most part and all of them were in Jerusalem for some time where James was in charge. There is no reference where Peter was ever in charge. If he were, Luke would have mentioned it. As it were, Peter is mentioned in Acts but not in leadership beyond the rest of the apostles whom were the foundation of the teaching of the church, Jesus being the corner stone. (...built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.)

    No where did anyone report the foundation being Peter. Peter hardly wrote anything worth mentioning that the church took as scripture. The major contributers were John and Paul. This cannot be denied. Peter wrote two letters. John wrote a Gospel and 3 letters. Paul's works do not need to be discussed, he was so proliferic. PEter never wrote that he was in charge. He never appealed to his authority at all. Not once.

    But I know the Catholics have some kind of spiritual bondage and cannot see the truth of what was in history. So we can finish. You want the Pope to be in the place of PEter although his life, his duds, his behaviour would make Peter turn in his grave. Imagine Peter in that pointy hat waving an incense burning devise on a chain lighting candles, praying to Mary (Peter never even addressed Mary as far as we know) and the like. But if we look at pagan ceremonies, ah, there we see all of this.
    This kind of drivel must include abject denial of history and Scripture in order for someone to believe it.
    As I stated earlier - the Early Church Father UNANIMOUSLY attest to Peter's Primacy. Tell me - what would they gain by lying about this? Acording to YOUR twisted logic - they didn't become perverted until Constantine in the 4th century - so why are Ignatius, Irenaeus and the rest testifying to the "Chair of Peter" where "sacerdotal unity has its source"??

    As for James being in charge of the universal Church - NOWHERE does Scripture or Tradition make this claim.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Agape For This Useful Post:

    Sagittarius (04-20-2017)

  9. #117
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    712
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 106 Times in 92 Posts

    Default

    Timeline of Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic relations

    This timeline of Orthodox Christian and Roman Catholic relations chronicles major dates which concern the relationship between the two communions.

    https://orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of...olic_relations


    * ca. 37-53 Episcopacy of Apostle Peter in Antioch.

    * 64 Martyrdom of Peter in Rome.

    * 67 Election of Linus, first bishop of Rome.

    * 135 First recorded use of title Pope by a Roman bishop (Hyginus).

    * 210 Hippolytus of Rome, bishop and martyr and last of the Greek-speaking fathers in Rome, writes Refutation of All Heresies (Philosophumena), and Apostolic Tradition.

    * 255 Cyprian of Carthage rejects Pope Stephen I's ruling on the Donatist controversy.

    Conciliar Era

    * 325 Original Nicene Creed ratified at First Ecumenical Council.

    * 330 Founding of Constantinople as New Rome, renaming the city of Byzantium.

    * 357 Pope Liberius signs Semi-Arian creed (possibly under duress).

    * 379 Emperor Gratian permits Roman pope authority over neighboring bishops.

    * 381 Nicene Creed expanded at Second Ecumenical Council.

    * 382 First use of papal title Pontifex Maximus, as Emperor Gratian relinquishes the former pagan imperial religious title and bestows it on Pope Damasus I of Rome.[1][note 1]

    * 395-405 Series of correspondences between Augustine of Hippo and Jerome, where Augustine maintains the validity of the Septuagint, while Jerome favours the Hebrew (Rabinnical) Bible which becomes the OT basis for the Latin Vulgate.[note 2]

    * 410 Rome sacked by Visigoth invaders.

    * 417 Pope Zosimus waffles on Pelagianism.

    * 447 Pope Leo I wrote to the bishops of Sicily, rebuking them for permitting baptism at Epiphany, as the Greeks did, and ordering them to observe the Roman custom of baptizing on Easter and Whitsunday.[2]

    * 451 Fourth Ecumenical Council notes that Rome's primacy is because it was "the imperial city"; Tome of Pope St. Leo Iendorsed by Council after review.

    * 455 Rome sacked by Vandals.

    * 476 Fall of the Western Roman Empire as Romulus Augustulus, the last Western Roman emperor, is deposed by the German Odoacer, leaving the emperor in the Greek East as the sole imperial authority, and an unstable political environment in the West where the Church of Rome slowly developed a centralized structure, concentrating religious as well as secular authority in the office of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.[note 3]

    * ca. 537 Pope Vigilius allegedly writes letter endorsing Monophysitism.

    * 537-752 Byzantine Papacy.

    * 589 Insertion of Filioque into Nicene Creed by local council in Toledo, Spain.

    * ca. 590-604 Pope St. Gregory the Great rejects the title of "universal bishop" for any bishop.
    "Truth has no expiry date. Lies do." ~ A.D. Williams

    "Error in history leads to the error in doctrine."

  10. #118
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    712
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 106 Times in 92 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    By your verbose rant - it’s painfully obvious that:
    1. You don’t know your Bible very well
    2. You don’t understand the Church.
    3. You are not a student of history.

    Let me start with your last woefully-ignorant sentence.
    Disciplines may come and go but Sacred Tradition does NOT. Sacred Tradition is what Jesus was talking about in John 16:12-15 and what Paul is writing about in 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2 and 1 Cor. 11:2. There is NO expiration date on Sacred Tradition.

    As for your claim that the Church is built on “false premises” – you didn’t give any evidence to back up that moronic statement.

    You, then, go on to expound on how James was the “Head” of the Church – not Peter.
    You quote from the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 – but you completely left out Peter’s opening judgement with which James merely agreed. Anti-Catholics ALWAYS do this to minimize Peter’s obvious leadership. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was earthly Head of the Church (Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:32, John 21:15-19).

    Each Bishopric had its succession. You go on to say that John was head of the Church, which is silly. There is NO evidence of this and Peter handed his Bishopric onto Linus – not John. Irenaeus makes this adamantly clear in his treatise Against Heresies in the 2nd century.

    I don’t know why you think I would have a problem with 2 Pet. 3:15-16 – other than the use of the word “Gospel.” Peter attributes Paul’s writings as “Scripture” – so keep that straight.

    Additionally – to say that Peter was “never” in Rome is a pathetic case of anti-Catholic denial. This fact is attested to UNANIMOUSLY by the Early Church Fathers, as was his mission in Rome. The city of Rome is dripping with evidence of Pete’s work there, his imprisonment and his execution by Nero. His bones lie beneath the main altar in St. Peter’s Basilica.

    Your perversion of 1 Tim. 4:1-4 is laughable – if not so tragically ignorant.
    John was writing about the GNOSTIC heretics – not the Catholic Church. The Gnostics forbade eating certain foods ALL the time. They forbade marriage. They perverted the gospel as YOU are doing.

    Not eating meat on Fridays follows Paul’s lesson of denial of the flesh that we draw closer to God (Romans 8:13, Col. 3:5, Gal. 5:24). Meat is not “forbidden” – just abstained from during Lent – and ONLY on Fridays and Ash Wednesday.

    Finally – your preposterous take on Matt. 23:9 means that we can’t call anybody Father is so Scripturally bankrupt, it’s almost difficult to know where to begin.

    .....

    Your final claim that you have “experience” with all of this is comical, judging by your complete ignorance on the subject.



    The Primacy of Peter, the Papacy and Apostolic Succession

    http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a87.htm

    ========

    Almost all of the references below can be verified in Edward Giles Documents Illustrating Papal Authority AD 96-454 (London: SPCK, 1952 reprinted by Hyperion Press, 1979) or Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy edited by Scott Butler, Norm Dahlgren, David Hess (Queenship, 1996). Mark is responding to a critic (hereafter, "our critic") on the early Papacy which will be quoted in smaller font.

    by Mark Bonocore

    The author of an anti-Papal essay starts off by asserting:

    << Of immense importance to the question of leadership of the church today is the issue of the Apostle Peter and doctrine of apostolic succession. It has already been demonstrated that Peter was not the first bishop of the first church. >>

    Has it now? Well, certainly not according to the witness of our ancient Christian forefathers:

    (1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).

    (2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).


    (3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).

    (4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).

    (5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as "the place of Peter" (Ep ad Anton), and as "the Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).

    (6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Cyprian).

    (7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).

    (8) The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).

    (9) Athanasius (340's) calls Rome the "Apostolic Throne" -- a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).

    (10) Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).

    (11) Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the "Apostolic chair" in which "the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church" (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how "The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church" and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, "Thou art Peter..." (Decree of Damasus 382).

    (12) Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).

    (13) Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).

    (14) Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of "the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit Petil).

    (15) Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were "the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair" (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).

    (16) Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as "the chair of Peter, the seat of faith" (De Fide 2).

    (17) Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome "the Apostolic See" and the "Chair of the Apostle Peter" (Carm de Ingratis).

    (18) The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how "it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors" and how "the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place" (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).

    (19) Peter Chrysologus (440) speaks of "blessed Peter living and presiding in his own see" (Ep ad Eutech).

    (20) Pope Leo the Great (440) says how "the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)" (Serm II, 2).

    (21) At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, "Peter has spoken through Leo." The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates "in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter" (Canons of Chalcedon).

    (22) The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope "the interpreter of Peter's voice."

    (23) Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops" (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).


    Now, if our critic would care to produce ONE ancient quote that DENIES that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, then perhaps he has an argument.

    Yet, until such time, the ancient witness stands firm and consistent.

    ===========



    However, there is one MAJOR PROBLEM:

    Clement was said to have been consecrated by Saint Peter,[3] Early church lists place him as the second bishop of Rome after Saint Peter.

    Tertullian considered Clement to be the immediate successor of Peter.[6]

    However, in one of his works, Jerome listed Clement as "the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter",

    and added that "most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle".[7]

    Clement is put after Linus and Cletus/Anacletus in the earliest (c. 180) account, that of Irenaeus,[8] who is followed by Eusebius of Caesarea.[9]


    However, to make this matter even more confused, the Liber Pontificalis[5] presents a list that makes Pope Linus the second in the line of bishops of Rome, with Peter as first; but at the same time it states that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Pope Cletus, for the priestly service of the community, devoting himself instead to prayer and preaching, and that it was to Clement that he entrusted the Church as a whole, appointing him as his successor.

    What else do we know about Clement and Linus ???

    Wasn't Linus pupil of Pharisee Paul ?

    Why Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). ?

    Peter was crucified in the Fall of 64 AD, and Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor.

    Why Linus was ordinated in the year 67 AD, (three years after Peter's death) the year when Pharisee Paul was beheaded ?


    Was Bishop Clement ordained by Peter, the same as Bishop Clement Titus Flavious ? Obviously NOT.
    Last edited by Sagittarius; 04-20-2017 at 05:23 PM.
    "Truth has no expiry date. Lies do." ~ A.D. Williams

    "Error in history leads to the error in doctrine."

  11. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    473
    Thanks
    125
    Thanked 74 Times in 67 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    By your verbose rant - it’s painfully obvious that:
    1. You don’t know your Bible very well
    2. You don’t understand the Church.
    3. You are not a student of history.
    That is just the pain of your brain trying to ignore truth you have been shown. Need a Tylenol?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    Let me start with your last woefully-ignorant sentence.
    "The Bible, as God's word, always remains."?

    I see you have truly embraced heresy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    Disciplines may come and go but Sacred Tradition does NOT. Sacred Tradition is what Jesus was talking about in John 16:12-15 and what Paul is writing about in 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2 and 1 Cor. 11:2. There is NO expiration date on Sacred Tradition.
    Oooops.

    Isaiah 1:14
    Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.

    Hosea 2:11
    And I will put an end to all her mirth, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts.

    Mark 7:9
    And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

    BTW: Why did the RCC change God's Sabbath from Saturday to SUNDAY? Was it on GOD's orders?

    Hip-boots are good to have when defending man-made institutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    As for your claim that the Church is built on “false premises” – you didn’t give any evidence to back up that moronic statement.
    Wow.

    Even an evolutionist would not make a blatant show of self-deceit. They, perhaps, would have called it "invalid" or something, but not outright denied having been presented with the facts I presented you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    You, then, go on to expound on how James was the “Head” of the Church – not Peter.
    Ah . . . Dude . . . Those were scriptures. I suggest you take it up with the author.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    You quote from the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 – but you completely left out Peter’s opening judgement with which James merely agreed. Anti-Catholics ALWAYS do this to minimize Peter’s obvious leadership. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was earthly Head of the Church (Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:32, John 21:15-19).
    Let's see this "logic". I talk about Acts 15, you acknowledge, but respond with this weird statement:
    Peter’s opening judgement with which James merely agreed.

    I know you do not agree with my statement:

    "The Bible, as God's word, always remains."
    But, I'll post scripture, anyway, for those who do agree:

    Acts 15:6~11
    The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them,
    “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.
    Could you please show a "judgement" or "decision" being made by Peter. All I see is testimony, until JAMES proclaims judgment. Had Peter been in authority, his last statements would have been decisive. Like James' was. Don't hide behind the "humility" deception either. Peter was perhaps the most outspoken of the apostles, and being indecisive about what he believed was not one of his traits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    Each Bishopric had its succession. You go on to say that John was head of the Church, which is silly. There is NO evidence of this and Peter handed his Bishopric onto Linus – not John. Irenaeus makes this adamantly clear in his treatise Against Heresies in the 2nd century.
    "Bishopric" can do whatever it wants. The Church cannot.

    Peter could not have "handed the church" to anyone as long as John was alive. John was an apostle, Linus was not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    I don’t know why you think I would have a problem with 2 Pet. 3:15-16 – other than the use of the word “Gospel.” Peter attributes Paul’s writings as “Scripture” – so keep that straight.
    Thanks for the technical correction. Fact remains: Paul's Holy Spirit-inspired, Jesus-Authorized Scriptures, plainly state apostles are first in the Church. As long as one was alive, that apostle would be FIRST. And that means John was appointed by Jesus to lead the church after the rest died.

    John 21:21~23
    Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”


    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    Additionally – to say that Peter was “never” in Rome is a pathetic case of anti-Catholic denial. This fact is attested to UNANIMOUSLY by the Early Church Fathers, as was his mission in Rome. The city of Rome is dripping with evidence of Pete’s work there, his imprisonment and his execution by Nero. His bones lie beneath the main altar in St. Peter’s Basilica.
    Lol. The friars that found Peter's grave in Jerusalem might disagree. Look it up. Plus, I did not say "never" except, should you care to actually read the full paragraph, in the sense of a short-term excursion. With the reasons that he had no business in ROME, as Paul made explicitly clear that Peter was in charge of the Jewish segment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    Your perversion of 1 Tim. 4:1-4 is laughable – if not so tragically ignorant.
    John was writing about the GNOSTIC heretics – not the Catholic Church. The Gnostics forbade eating certain foods ALL the time. They forbade marriage. They perverted the gospel as YOU are doing.
    I didn't write it. Take it up with the author. I cannot help any similarities you might find offensive, just point them out to you, and it is obvious they bother you: That is your conciense speaking.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    Not eating meat on Fridays follows Paul’s lesson of denial of the flesh that we draw closer to God (Romans 8:13, Col. 3:5, Gal. 5:24). Meat is not “forbidden” – just abstained from during Lent – and ONLY on Fridays and Ash Wednesday.
    And any local priest can go today and marry the Prom Queen. Yes, we know you are in denial. Please re-read Jesus' comments about fasting and rituals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    Finally – your preposterous take on Matt. 23:9 means that we can’t call anybody Father is so Scripturally bankrupt, it’s almost difficult to know where to begin.
    Not my words. Take it up with the author.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agape View Post
    Jesus is using hyperbole (exaggeration) to make a point and does so many times in Scripture. In the verse that precedes this (Matt: 23:8), Jesus tells us not to call people “Teachers”. Is Jesus telling us that we can’t call certain people "fathers" or “teachers” when they may actually be fathers or teachers? Absolutely NOT. He is telling us that no man is to be considered father above our Father in heaven and no person is to be considered teacher above our Teacher in heaven.

    Jesus was speaking about the Scribes and Pharisees who exalted themselves before all: “They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi” (Matt 23:6-7).

    Consider the following passages:
    - Jesus said, “Your FATHER Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
    - St. Stephen refers to "our FATHER Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
    - St. Paul speaks of "our FATHER Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
    - For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
    - "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a TEACHER of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7).
    - "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and TEACHER" (2 Tim. 1:11).
    - "God has appointed in the church first Apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERS" (1 Cor. 12:28).


    Your final claim that you have “experience” with all of this is comical, judging by your complete ignorance on the subject.
    Sorry. I'm X-Catholic, raised in Catholic schools of very high caliber, personally approached by a bishop on more than one occasion to join the clergy (which I had to politely decline). You can keep the denial going as long as you want, but history and facts are against you.

    My mother is still Catholic, as is the rest of my family. But she is not a hypocrite or a self-denier of truth. I explained all about why the RCC is false, and she showed me piles of more evidence to back that up, gathered over 60 years of study.

    Why is she Catholic?

    She likes tradition. But puts no faith in it and is not blind to the truth.

    You can choose to live in your fantasy for as long as you want. You have been shown, if only briefly by me, but in much greater detail by others, the truth.

    Our jobs are complete.

    PS. As I said, you can be Catholic if you want. It is of no difference to me. Just be sure your reasons are solid and not self-deception.
    "You [the Father], the Only True God" -- Jesus Christ (1st Century CE)

  12. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    127
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by An Onymous Brother View Post
    That is just the pain of your brain trying to ignore truth you have been shown. Need a Tylenol?


    "The Bible, as God's word, always remains."?
    I see you have truly embraced heresy.
    Care to elaborate – or are you satisfied just wallowing in empty accusations??

    Quote Originally Posted by An Onymous Brother View Post
    Oooops.

    Isaiah 1:14
    Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.

    Hosea 2:11
    And I will put an end to all her mirth, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts.

    Mark 7:9
    And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

    BTW: Why did the RCC change God's Sabbath from Saturday to SUNDAY? Was it on GOD's orders?

    Hip-boots are good to have when defending man-made institutions.

    Such complete ignorance.
    No wonder you left the Church . . .

    These verses are talking about the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders – NOT about Christ’s Church.

    As for the Sabbath – who “changed” it?? Certainly NOT the Church.
    Why would you make such a pathetically ignorant accusation??

    Finally – the Church was built by Jesus – who is GOD.
    No “man made” institution here . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by An Onymous Brother View Post
    Wow.

    Even an evolutionist would not make a blatant show of self-deceit. They, perhaps, would have called it "invalid" or something, but not outright denied having been presented with the facts I presented you.
    You presented nothing but a couple of completely irrelevant verses.
    Stick to the TOPIC. That’s how you have an intelligent conversation . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by An Onymous Brother View Post
    Ah . . . Dude . . . Those were scriptures. I suggest you take it up with the author.
    Really?? Show me where ANY verse you presented names James as the “Head” of the universal Church.

    Can’t do it??
    That’s what I thought . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by An Onymous Brother View Post
    Let's see this "logic". I talk about Acts 15, you acknowledge, but respond with this weird statement:
    Peter’s opening judgement with which James merely agreed.

    I know you do not agree with my statement:


    "The Bible, as God's word, always remains."
    But, I'll post scripture, anyway, for those who do agree:

    Could you please show a "judgement" or "decision" being made by Peter. All I see is testimony, until JAMES proclaims judgment. Had Peter been in authority, his last statements would have been decisive. Like James' was. Don't hide behind the "humility" deception either. Peter was perhaps the most outspoken of the apostles, and being indecisive about what he believed was not one of his traits.

    R*E*A*D the text.
    James merely agrees with Peter and makes a judgement based on what Peter already stated. He didn’t come up with this on his own.

    Quote Originally Posted by An Onymous Brother View Post
    "Bishopric" can do whatever it wants. The Church cannot.

    Peter could not have "handed the church" to anyone as long as John was alive. John was an apostle, Linus was not.

    And why would that be??
    Why couldn’t Peter hand over the leadership to Linus??

    You are completely ignorant of how the Church works.
    It’s no wonder you left with your tail between your legs . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by An Onymous Brother View Post
    "Thanks for the technical correction. Fact remains: Paul's Holy Spirit-inspired, Jesus-Authorized Scriptures, plainly state apostles are first in the Church. As long as one was alive, that apostle would be FIRST. And that means John was appointed by Jesus to lead the church after the rest died.
    Bishops are the Successors to the Apostles – having all of the same powers of that office (Acts 1:20).
    Linus was Peter’s Successor. Ignatius was a student of John.

    And you went to Catholic school??

    Quote Originally Posted by An Onymous Brother View Post
    Lol. The friars that found Peter's grave in Jerusalem might disagree. Look it up. Plus, I did not say "never" except, should you care to actually read the full paragraph, in the sense of a short-term excursion. With the reasons that he had no business in ROME, as Paul made explicitly clear that Peter was in charge of the Jewish segment.
    And there were NO Jews in Rome??
    The Jews were DISPERSED.
    We read about this in Acts 2 where Peter addresses Jews from ALL over the world at Pentecost. The fact is that Peter preached in Rome for MANY years as is attested by the Early Church Fathers I already listed.

    STUDY your Bible and STUDY your history before responding.

    Quote Originally Posted by An Onymous Brother View Post
    I didn't write it. Take it up with the author. I cannot help any similarities you might find offensive, just point them out to you, and it is obvious they bother you: That is your conciense speaking.
    And any local priest can go today and marry the Prom Queen. Yes, we know you are in denial. Please re-read Jesus' comments about fasting and rituals.

    Not my words. Take it up with the author.

    Sorry. I'm X-Catholic, raised in Catholic schools of very high caliber, personally approached by a bishop on more than one occasion to join the clergy (which I had to politely decline). You can keep the denial going as long as you want, but history and facts are against you.

    My mother is still Catholic, as is the rest of my family. But she is not a hypocrite or a self-denier of truth. I explained all about why the RCC is false, and she showed me piles of more evidence to back that up, gathered over 60 years of study.

    Why is she Catholic?

    She likes tradition. But puts no faith in it and is not blind to the truth.

    You can choose to live in your fantasy for as long as you want. You have been shown, if only briefly by me, but in much greater detail by others, the truth.

    Our jobs are complete.

    PS. As I said, you can be Catholic if you want. It is of no difference to me. Just be sure your reasons are solid and not self-deception.
    Yes – you were such a knowledgeable “Catholic” that you completely blew off the ample Scriptural evidence I presented to obliterate your position on not callin anybody “Father”.

    Bottom line: YOU let the Church out of shear ignorance of your faith.
    Doesn’t matter one bit how many Catholic schools you attended or how man Bishops you spoke to. Your posts exude a complete and total lack of understanding of the Catholic faith as well as a blind acceptance of some of the myths and falsehoods about the Church.

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •