What is the one true Church?

[Grailhunter]

You assert so many false histories I don't know where to begin. Pope Siricius was the 38th pope, before him all the popes were killed by pagan Romans.

You don't back up your theories with any primary or secondary sources, just regurgitate the same post-enlightenment era nonsense. If you are going to cite historical facts, try using reputable Protestant sources after 1960. You don't do that, instead you rely on outdated world views that Protestant Bible colleges no longer teach.

Wrong again.
The false history is in the lapse of the Catholic Church, they have been trying to rewrite history for quite awhile.

Constantine was a secular emperor, never leader of the Church. He was present at the Council as a temporal leader and made no contributions to any of the canons. But again, you don't support this crap with any scholarly documentation.

Again no Bishops riding out to enforce their doctrines. Rome killed people that tried to claim authority in the Roman Empire, only one authority was tolerated. The Church definitely did not have authority over Emperor Constantine. Rome had one ruler. The Church's physical power was with him. The first Ecumenical Councils were convened by Emperor Constantine....Convened, planned, and financed by Rome.

 

[Taken]

1. 218 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, appointed by Saint Peter, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in which he used the word ‘Catholic’ to denote the Church established by Jesus Christ:

“Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

1. In that same letter Saint Ignatius gave a teaching about the Holy Eucharist that continues to be taught only by the Catholic Church today:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from the public offices; because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ; which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness, raised again from the dead. And for this cause contradicting the gift of God, they die in their disputes: but much better would it be for them to receive it, that they might one day rise through it.”

Jesus established “His” Church, which “He” called, “My Church”.
Jesus established “His Church, WAS and IS, being built upon the Rock Foundation of Believers THAT WHICH heartfully BELIEVE and CONFESS:

** Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Jesus established “WHERE-EVER” two or three (of “HIS” Church) ARE gathered together; is “His Church”, AND so ALSO, is Christ Jesus Gathered with them.

Eucrharist translated from Greek means; Thankfulness.

Jesus established “WHERE-EVER” His Church is gathered to EAT, to DRINK, to do so (eat and drink) in “REMEMBRANCE” of “Him”....Christ Jesus.

Where-ever Christ Jesus’ Church (WHICH ARE; Confessed Believing individuals; ) are gathered, eating, drinking, in Remembrance of Him, they have FULFILLED that which Jesus established.

Certainly that gathering, and remembrance; may occur IN an man-made structure CALLED a “Catholic Church”....
BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY called “a Catholic Church”...

Christ’s Church IS within a man,
ANY place, in any structure, or at a field, or on boat, or place two or three IN Christ are gathered, eating and drinking, IN remembrance of Christ Jesus, Have fulfilled that which Jesus Established.

Remembering Jesus ...DURING eating and drinking....IS ONE THING.
Thanking Jesus ...ANYTIME...IS ANOTHER THING...that IS NOT, exclusively LIMITED to eating and drinking.

Neither of those ^^^ things are EXCLUSIVE to a man-made Church, that some Gentile men, call a “Catholic Church”.

Jews Had been gathering IN buildings called a Temple, and synagogues, Hearing the Word of God, From Jews, To Jews ...
* LONG before a group of Jewish men established buildings they called A Christian Church and called themselves Christians, and built their Churches upon CHRIST Jesus.
* And LONG before a group of Gentile men established buildings called A Catholic Church, and called themselves Catholics.....and built their Churches upon PETER....and MARY.
* And LONG before a group of Gentile men established buildings they called A Protestant Church, and called themselves Protestants....and built their Churches upon CHRIST Jesus.

 

[Grailhunter]

The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome. Therefore it is an open question who was the first ‘pope’ as such.

The critics of the Catholic Church aren’t really worried about when the term ‘pope’ was first used. What they mean when they say that Leo the Great (440-461) was the first pope is that this is when the papacy began to assume worldly power. This is, therefore, simply a problem in definition of terms. By ‘pope’ the Evangelical means what I thought of as ‘pope’ after my Evangelical childhood. By ‘pope’ they mean ‘corrupt earthly ruler’. In that respect Leo the Great might be termed the ‘first pope’ because he was the one, (in the face of the disintegrating Roman Empire) who stepped up and got involved in temporal power without apology.

However, seeing the pope as merely a temporal ruler and disapproving is to be too simplistic. Catholics understand the pope’s power to be spiritual. While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly, and did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. Whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power is arguable, but at the heart of their ministry, like the Lord they served, they should have known that their kingdom was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It was not first and foremost to be hierarchical and monarchical in the worldly sense.

The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fourth or fifth century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the establishment of the church at Constantine’s conversion the church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy. The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus’ ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo the Great or Pope Siricius was the first ‘pope’ is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.

The Early Church Today

From the Reformation onward, Protestant Christians have fallen into the trap of Restorationism. This is the idea that the existing church has become corrupt and departed from the true gospel and that a new church that is faithful to the New Testament can be created. These sincere Christians then attempt to ‘restore’ the church by creating a new church. The problem is, each new group of restorationists invariably create a church of their own liking determined by their contemporary cultural assumptions. They then imagine that the early church was like the one they have invented.

All of the historical documents show that, in essence, the closest thing we have today to the early church is actually the Catholic Church. In these main points the Catholic Church is today what she has always been. Her leadership is unapologetically monarchical and hierarchical. Her teaching authority is centralized and universal, and the pope is what he has always been, the universal pastor of Christ’s Church, the steward of Christ’s kingdom and the Rock on which Christ builds his Church.

The Early Papacy - 3 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

As we have seen, the idea of a monarchical papacy was there from the beginning in Jesus’ identity as the Great scion of David the King with Peter as his

www.patheos.com

First off do not put me in the category of "critics of the Catholics."
But you are saying a lot of things that are not true. for instance....

"In these main points the Catholic Church is today what she has always been." This is not true. The Modern Catholic Church is better than it has ever been. At one point the Catholic leadership was totally corrupt and guilty of some of the worst atrocities on earth. And again I am saying the leadership of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Christians of history are not part of this and in some ways were victims of it.

The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fourth or fifth century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. This is false. The Protestants and history have it right. People like to bring up the fact that the English word for Pope comes from the Greek word for papa or father. Which is correct but irrelevant, of course they had a word for papa or father!....centuries before the New Testament era.

Peter was a great guy and people loved him, that is why folklore has been developed about him. The facts; The scriptures never refer to him as papa, father, or Pope. Of course then he did not refer to himself as Pope. Considering what Christ said it looked like He was setting him up to be a Christian leader, but there is no biblical or historical indication that he took that position. James apparently took the leadership role and we do not know exactly how that happened and he was not even an Apostle.

The last the Gospels tell us about Peter is that he denied Christ. According to the scriptures Peter's greatest contribution to Christianity is when he teamed up with Paul. Still nothing about anybody being a Pope in the scriptures. Then after the biblical era there were Christian leaders but none held the official title of Pope, until Pope Siricius in the fourth century. Before that from the early 3rd century on it was common to call all bishops Pope......papa....which is probably why all Catholic priests are called Father now.

The facts; The Catholic Church is the oldest existing Christian Church....hands down. But Christians were not of one belief before the Ecumenical Councils....The Christian Bishops came to Nicaea with differing beliefs and the councils after Nicaea continued to define Catholic beliefs.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

The Name above every Name is .... JESUS...(English spelling)

Were I an atheist or some such disbeliever, I probably wouldn't be too
interested in names and whatnot. But quite possibly I might be very
concerned that Jesus has charge of the netherworld.

● Phil 2:10 . . Every knee will bend . . . . under the earth.

● Rev 1:18 . . . I am he who lives, and was dead, and behold: I am alive
forevermore; and I have the keys of Death and Hades.
_

 

[thelord's_pearl]

I had the idea that the One true Church is every church that teaches the Bible correctly: the Holy Trinity, baptism in water, goes by the Word and doesn't cut anything out.

 

[BreadOfLife]

LOL You are so funny.


I understand how important it is to the Catholics to see Peter as the first official Pope.....Pope Peter. Sorry the term nor the office existed during Peter's life. Pope as a religious office does not occur until the 4th century. Pope Siricius being the first to occupy that office.

Peter was popular and what people called him...who knows. Reinventing history....this is something that happens a lot. People in the 4th century looking back at Peter may have defined him as a Pope....but nothing like that during his lifetime. Papa, father, Pope....terms of endearment....Christian reflection on past history.


Like I said Constantine was the leader of the Church and saying that he converted later is misleading. He had a vision just before The Battle of the Milvian Bridge 312...Which lead to the Edict of Milan 313......Then he commanded the Christian leadership to the Council of Nicaea. 325 From there several councils occurred after that, but no important decision or doctrine was approved or put in to effect with out his approval. (Emperor at the time} Church and state were one. For one, some of these doctrines were enforced by law and by pain of death. The Christian Bishops of the Catholic Church did not ride out and kill people. The Cathers were not exterminated by Bishops on horseback. The Councils made doctrines and the Roman Empire was the enforcer.

As far as Emperor Constantine being a Pagan.... Constantine was a believer in Christ since the vision and the Battle of the Milvian Bridge....getting baptized on his death bed was a known practice....thinking that way you went to Judgment with fewer sins.


I have already answered this.....Rome is persecuting and torturing and killing tens of thousands of Christians for sport in Rome. Sure Christians could go there but it was not a safe place for Christians as I said Paul and Peter found that out.


Again most of this is reinventing history and wishful thinking. Issues with the Chair of Peter? You so funny....you need to look that up.



Your understanding of this is incorrect.....The leader of the Jewish-Christians was James.....He was requiring that the Jewish Saturday Sabbath be observed but the Lord's Day on Sunday took time to be established.....and the Jewish Christians observed the 613 Mosaic Laws?? Now did all of the them observe them....it is hard to tell. Again as a I said the Council in Jerusalem
1. Indicated in a letter that the Gentile Christians did not have to observe the 613 Mosaic Laws.
2. Effectively defined them as a separate group
3 Made it official that the Judaizers should stop harassing Paul and the Gentile Christians.

We can see that the Jewish-Christian Apostles never stopped referencing the Law and the Ten Commandments.
Where as Paul made it clear that the Law did not pertain to Christians and you could lose your saved status by observing it.

And now you’re just LYING.

There is not a SINGLE document, declaration or decree with regard to Constantine being the “”leader” of the Catholic Church at ANY time – and BOTH the pagan Rome AND the Church were sticklers for documentation. As for his conversion m- he wasn’t Baptized until his death bed. So, whereas, he MAY have had leanings toward Christianity, he was NOT a Christian until his dying days.

As for your revisionism with regard to Pope Siricius being the “first” Pope – he was the 38th Pope. according to history as recorded by the sources including The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, by Protestant historian, J.N.D. Kelly, Wikipedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica. YOUR claim is laughable.

In complete cowardly fashion, you glossed over the 2nd and 3rd century evidence for the Papacy that I presented:
Irenaeus’s 2nd century list of Pope from his own time going all the way back to Peter from his treatise, Against Heresies.
Tertullian’s letter, Di Pudicitia with regard to Pope Callistus in the 3td century.
There is also the ruling from Pope Victor in the 2nd century with regard to the dating of Easter.

As to your dismissal of the term, “The Chair of Peter” – I gave you the actual words from the Early Church on the matter. If this is something you can read and simply ignore without an REAL argument – then my case is made.

YOUR take on the Papacy read like nothing more than a massive exercise in denial . . .

As to the Jewish question pertaining to the early Christians, Peter’s vision in Acts 10 with regard to the Dietary Law and Pau’s explanation of the Law being FULFILLED in Christ in 2 Col. 2 makes it abundantly clear that the Law was NO LONGER a requirement for ANYVODY, as it had been fulfilled in Christ.

You have a penchant for simply INVENTING history as you go along instead of trusting the documented evidence.
We usually refer to people who do this a s “Liars” . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

There is not a SINGLE document, declaration or decree with regard to Constantine being the “”leader” of the Catholic Church at ANY time

Does tons of history books count? Constantine was the Emperor of Rome.....Rome was the seat of the Roman Catholic Church. Without Constantine that Church had no power and no protection. As long as the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire existed Emperors excised authority over the Catholic Church. This continued on until the Middle Ages and you can read about Henry the Vlll, King Phillip, and King Richard....etc

As for your revisionism with regard to Pope Siricius being the “first” Pope – he was the 38th Pope. according to history as recorded by the sources including The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, by Protestant historian, J.N.D. Kelly, Wikipedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica. YOUR claim is laughable.

First Christian leader with the title Pope. As I said the Catholics write their own history.

In complete cowardly fashion, you glossed over the 2nd and 3rd century evidence for the Papacy that I presented:
Irenaeus’s 2nd century list of Pope from his own time going all the way back to Peter from his treatise, Against Heresies.
Tertullian’s letter, Di Pudicitia with regard to Pope Callistus in the 3td century.
There is also the ruling from Pope Victor in the 2nd century with regard to the dating of Easter.

Why not gloss over it is malarkey, you might as well say they were called Presidents or Viceroys....the terms did not exist as titles.

As to your dismissal of the term, “The Chair of Peter” – I gave you the actual words from the Early Church on the matter. If this is something you can read and simply ignore without an REAL argument – then my case is made.

Did not dismiss the chair of Peter, I said you needed to look into the topic. What you gave me was someone referring to the the chair of Peter long after he was died and I have already explained the fact that people were trying promote Peter as a leader of Christianity when he never was. All this focus on Peter is not biblically or historically correct, he was an Apostle like all the other Apostles and that was his title. The Bible does not indicate that Peter exercised any more authority than any other Apostle. It is more accurate to say that the Catholic Church was the successor of all the Apostles. But as far as the Chair of Saint Peter.....

The Chair of Saint Peter (Latin: Cathedra Petri), also known as the Throne of Saint Peter, is a relic conserved in St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City, the sovereign enclave of the Pope inside Rome, Italy. The relic is a wooden throne that tradition claims belonged to the Apostle Saint Peter, the leader of the Early Christians in Rome and first Pope, and which he used as Bishop of Rome.[1] The relic is enclosed in a sculpted gilt bronze casing designed by Gian Lorenzo Bernini and constructed between 1647 and 1653.[1] In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI described the chair as "a symbol of the special mission of Peter and his Successors to tend Christ's flock, keeping it united in faith and in charity."

Then you have....

The gender test....LOL....Chairs with a large hole cut in the seat are sometimes thought to have been used to check the sex of a new Pope. The story goes that the aim of the checks was to prevent a repeat of the scandal of "Pope Joan", a legendary female cardinal supposedly elected pope in the 14th Century.

Early martyrologies indicate that two liturgical feasts were celebrated in Rome, centuries before the time of Charles the Bald, in honour of earlier chairs associated with Saint Peter, one of which was kept in the baptismal chapel of Old St. Peter's Basilica, the other at the catacomb of Priscilla.[5] The dates of these celebrations were January 18 and February 22. No surviving chair has been identified with either of these chairs. The feasts thus became associated with an abstract understanding of the "Chair of Peter", which by synecdoche signifies the episcopal office of the Pope as Bishop of Rome, an office considered to have been first held by Saint Peter, and thus extended to the diocese, the See of Rome

 

[BreadOfLife]

Does tons of history books count? Constantine was the Emperor of Rome.....Rome was the seat of the Roman Catholic Church. Without Constantine that Church had no power and no protection. As long as the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire existed Emperors excised authority over the Catholic Church. This continued on until the Middle Ages and you can read about Henry the Vlll, King Phillip, and King Richard....etc

Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion. Nobody was compelled to convert to Christianity during his reign. The Edict of Milan simply decriminalized Christianity - and I doubt that your "tons of history books" make a contrary claim.

First Christian leader with the title Pope. As I said the Catholics write their own history.

WRONG.
Now, you're talking out of your backside . . .

Of the EIGHT title of the Bishop of Rome - "POPE" is NOT one of them. t is merely a term of endearment.
Save your lies for someone who doesn't know his Catholic faith.

Why not gloss over it is malarkey, you might as well say they were called Presidents or Viceroys....the terms did not exist as titles.

Duhhh, because I gave you documented proof that he was being called the "Pontifex Maximus" by the THIRD century, Einstein..

Good grief - I even gave you the name of Tertullian's document Di Pudicitia.
Read it for yourself . . .

Did not dismiss the chair of Peter, I said you needed to look into the topic. What you gave me was someone referring to the the chair of Peter long after he was died and I have already explained the fact that people were trying promote Peter as a leader of Christianity when he never was. All this focus on Peter is not biblically or historically correct, he was an Apostle like all the other Apostles and that was his title. The Bible does not indicate that Peter exercised any more authority than any other Apostle. It is more accurate to say that the Catholic Church was the successor of all the Apostles. But as far as the Chair of Saint Peter.....

The Chair of Saint Peter (Latin: Cathedra Petri), also known as the Throne of Saint Peter, is a relic conserved in St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City, the sovereign enclave of the Pope inside Rome, Italy. The relic is a wooden throne that tradition claims belonged to the Apostle Saint Peter, the leader of the Early Christians in Rome and first Pope, and which he used as Bishop of Rome.[1] The relic is enclosed in a sculpted gilt bronze casing designed by Gian Lorenzo Bernini and constructed between 1647 and 1653.[1] In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI described the chair as "a symbol of the special mission of Peter and his Successors to tend Christ's flock, keeping it united in faith and in charity."

Then you have....

The gender test....LOL....Chairs with a large hole cut in the seat are sometimes thought to have been used to check the sex of a new Pope. The story goes that the aim of the checks was to prevent a repeat of the scandal of "Pope Joan", a legendary female cardinal supposedly elected pope in the 14th Century.

Early martyrologies indicate that two liturgical feasts were celebrated in Rome, centuries before the time of Charles the Bald, in honour of earlier chairs associated with Saint Peter, one of which was kept in the baptismal chapel of Old St. Peter's Basilica, the other at the catacomb of Priscilla.[5] The dates of these celebrations were January 18 and February 22. No surviving chair has been identified with either of these chairs. The feasts thus became associated with an abstract understanding of the "Chair of Peter", which by synecdoche signifies the episcopal office of the Pope as Bishop of Rome, an office considered to have been first held by Saint Peter, and thus extended to the diocese, the See of Rome

The "Chair of Peter", as referred to by the ECFs is NOT an actual piece of furniture constructed over a thousand years later. It is an office - much like the "Charis of Moses" that Jesus refeerenced in Matt. 23:2.

The fact that you can sit there with a straight face and make this asinine statement above in RED proves my point that you're talking out of your backside. ALL of the statements from the Early Church Fathers that I presented are HISTORICAL statements.

As for Scriptural proof of Peter's Primacy -

a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??

His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I had the idea that the One true Church is every church that teaches the Bible correctly: the Holy Trinity, baptism in water, goes by the Word and doesn't cut anything out.

Well, if you're going by that criteria alone - EVERY Protestant church that I know of starts off by deleting 7 Books from the Bible, along with portions of Esther and Daniel.

Kind of hard to teach it "correctly" when you effectively erase such a large portion of God's Word . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion

You do not know history much....right. You need to dive into that. Learn a little history about the changes Emperor Constantine made to the empire to accommodate Christianity and the wars it fought to protect them and the battles with the heretics....Bishops did not mount horses with swords to fight with these people.

Constantine completely altered the relationship between the church and the imperial government, thereby beginning a process that eventually made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Then you need to study Constantine's project in the building of Constantinople. The money and labor to build that city did not come from the Church and it was dedicated to Christianity.

Here is a little bit.....take notes....

In 313 AD, the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which accepted Christianity: 10 years later, it had become the official religion of the Roman Empire.

On February 27, 380, in Thessaloniki, the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius I (347 - 395) signed a decree in the presence of the Western Roman Emperor Valentinian II (371 - 392) that made Christianity the religion of the state and punished the practice of pagan rituals.

Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire when Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, which recognized the catholic orthodoxy of Nicene Christians in the Great Church as the Roman Empire's state religion.

Emperor Constantine legalized the practice of Christianity in 313, and it became the state religion in 380. Germanic invaders of Roman territory in the 5th and 6th centuries, many of whom had previously adopted Arian Christianity, eventually adopted Catholicism to ally themselves with the papacy and the monasteries.

Constantine endowed Christians with funds to build their basilicas and to acquire property,

Of the EIGHT title of the Bishop of Rome - "POPE" is NOT one of them. t is merely a term of endearment.
Save your lies for someone who doesn't know his Catholic faith.

Pope Siricius the first person to hold the official title and office of Pope.....

The "Chair of Peter", as referred to by the ECFs is NOT an actual piece of furniture constructed over a thousand years later. It is an office - much like the "Charis of Moses" that Jesus refeerenced in Matt. 23:2.

And I am saying the office nor the authority existed at that time.

Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion. Nobody was compelled to convert to Christianity during his reign. The Edict of Milan simply decriminalized Christianity - and I doubt that your "tons of history books" make a contrary claim.

WRONG.
Now, you're talking out of your backside . . .

Of the EIGHT title of the Bishop of Rome - "POPE" is NOT one of them. t is merely a term of endearment.
Save your lies for someone who doesn't know his Catholic faith.

Duhhh, because I gave you documented proof that he was being called the "Pontifex Maximus" by the THIRD century, Einstein..

Good grief - I even gave you the name of Tertullian's document Di Pudicitia.
Read it for yourself . . .

The "Chair of Peter", as referred to by the ECFs is NOT an actual piece of furniture constructed over a thousand years later. It is an office - much like the "Charis of Moses" that Jesus refeerenced in Matt. 23:2.

The fact that you can sit there with a straight face and make this asinine statement above in RED proves my point that you're talking out of your backside. ALL of the statements from the Early Church Fathers that I presented are HISTORICAL statements.

As for Scriptural proof of Peter's Primacy -

a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??

His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

I did not say that Peter was not an important Apostle. Great guy....and mentioned in the Bible but never called a Pope.

Mary Magdalene topped nearly every female list....does that make her a Popette?

Paul is the most mentioned Apostle in the Bible and the most literarily prolific. Paul is the Apostle that made the most theological impact on Christianity and outside of the Gospels today the most quoted.

Christ talked to Peter about his leadership and the keys.....but the Bible does not show him being in a leadership role above any other Apostle. Shortly after the conversation with Peter about being the rock....Christ called him Satan.....Then down the road Christ knowing his cowardly character, told him that he would deny him 3 times.....and he did!

Perspective! perspective!
Don't get me wrong. I do not hold it against the Catholics for coming up with all these stories and folklore about Peter. It is normal.... human nature....common. People will exaggerate about admired and beloved historical figures. I think the Catholics feel like they need a special connection with Christianity, but they do not need it, they are the oldest....largest Christian Church. Back in the day they may have felt they needed to convince people.....but that day is past. Consider yourself fortunate, the Catholic Church has all that history, all the Protestants have is the book and after 500 years and tens of thousands of denominations they still cannot figure it out.

The thing with Peter is a lot like George Washington....People loved him when he was alive and long there after. So may stories and tall tales were promulgated until he was like a god. Historians tried to track his every move and every word he said.....LOL where he slept turned out to be more like who he slept with. It is all normal so it does not bother me that the Catholics idolize Peter.

 

[Illuminator]

You do not know history much....right. You need to dive into that. Learn a little history about the changes Emperor Constantine made to the empire to accommodate Christianity and the wars it fought to protect them and the battles with the heretics....Bishops did not mount horses with swords to fight with these people.

But you don't name the wars, nor do you give any historical context to these alleged "wars", and you have no documented proof that Catholics slaughtered pagans.

Constantine completely altered the relationship between the church and the imperial government, thereby beginning a process that eventually made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Then you need to study Constantine's project in the building of Constantinople. The money and labor to build that city did not come from the Church and it was dedicated to Christianity.

Here is a little bit.....take notes....

In 313 AD, the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which accepted Christianity: 10 years later, it had become the official religion of the Roman Empire.

So what. Being the official religion of the Roman Empire does not automatically mean it was illegal not to be a Christian.

On February 27, 380, in Thessaloniki, the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius I (347 - 395) signed a decree in the presence of the Western Roman Emperor Valentinian II (371 - 392) that made Christianity the religion of the state and punished the practice of pagan rituals.

"punished the practice of pagan rituals" : another airhead assumption with no proof. IF some crazy Catholics did this, it was not endorsed by the CC, it was sinful. Again, provide primary and/or secondary documentation of Catholics officially punishing pagans. Simply asserting it doesn't make it true.

Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire when Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, which recognized the catholic orthodoxy of Nicene Christians in the Great Church as the Roman Empire's state religion.

Let me guess. You reject the Nicene Creed, along with rejection of the whole Council of Nicaea of 325. That's why lies about Constantine are so important to you.

Pope Siricius the first person to hold the official title and office of Pope.....

This nonsense has been refuted repeatedly, you are too proud to be corrected.

And I am saying the office nor the authority existed at that time.


I did not say that Peter was not an important Apostle. Great guy....and mentioned in the Bible but never called a Pope.

Because "Pope" is an English word, and English did not exist as a language for several centuries. The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome. You are correct is claiming the English word "Pope" is not in the Bible, but the Greek word ‘pappas’ is definitely in the Bible.
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” (Greek pappas)
1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father (Greek 'pappas') in Christ Jesus.”
"Trinity" and "Incarnation" is not in the Bible either. Your word games are stupid.
I'm beginning to suspect you are another arrogant anti-trinitarian.

Mary Magdalene topped nearly every female list....does that make her a Popette?

More stupidity. Mary Magdalene ranks among the greatest female saints in the CC.

Paul is the most mentioned Apostle in the Bible and the most literarily prolific. Paul is the Apostle that made the most theological impact on Christianity and outside of the Gospels today the most quoted.

The notion that Paul was on his own, independent from the institutional Church, has always been rejected as unbiblical.

Christ talked to Peter about his leadership and the keys.....but the Bible does not show him being in a leadership role above any other Apostle.

Jesus gave Peter the keys first, as an individual. Then He gave the keys to the other Apostles as a collective. But that means nothing to you.

Shortly after the conversation with Peter about being the rock....Christ called him Satan.....Then down the road Christ knowing his cowardly character, told him that he would deny him 3 times.....and he did!

Perspective! perspective!

These anti-Peter arguments don't hold water, and have been refuted a million times.

Don't get me wrong. I do not hold it against the Catholics for coming up with all these stories and folklore about Peter. It is normal.... human nature....common. People will exaggerate about admired and beloved historical figures.

More stupidity. The biblical and historical evidence is not folklore, you just deny, deny, deny.

I think the Catholics feel like they need a special connection with Christianity, but they do not need it, they are the oldest....largest Christian Church. Back in the day they may have felt they needed to convince people.....but that day is past.

The CC is not a billion+ strong because of convincing people. Non-Catholics and even anti-Catholics convert to Catholicism because they are called by God, not by convincing arguments. The testimonies of thousands affirms this.

Consider yourself fortunate, the Catholic Church has all that history, all the Protestants have is the book and after 500 years and tens of thousands of denominations they still cannot figure it out.

Yup, and by the looks of your posts, you haven't figured it out either.

The thing with Peter is a lot like George Washington....People loved him when he was alive and long there after. So may stories and tall tales were promulgated until he was like a god. Historians tried to track his every move and every word he said.....LOL where he slept turned out to be more like who he slept with. It is all normal so it does not bother me that the Catholics idolize Peter.

Peter was an idiot at times. But it's easy to identify with Peter, not out of any sanctity on his own, but because he was a lot like us.

 

[Illuminator]

Two great Apostles of the Gospel and two pillars of the Church: Peter and Paul. Today we celebrate their memory. Let us take a closer look at these two witnesses of faith. At the heart of their story is not their own gifts and abilities; at the centre is the encounter with Christ that changed their lives. They experienced a love that healed them and set them free. They then became apostles and ministers of freedom for others.

Peter and Paul were free because they were set free. Let us reflect on this central point.

Peter, the fisherman from Galilee, was set free above all from his sense of inadequacy and his bitter experience of failure, thanks to the unconditional love of Jesus. Although a skilled fisher, many times, in the heart of the night, he tasted the bitterness of frustration at having caught nothing (cf. Lk 5:5; Jn 21:5) and, seeing his empty nets, was tempted to pull up his oars. Though strong and impetuous, Peter often yielded to fear (cf. Mt 14:30). Albeit a fervent disciple of the Lord, he continued to think by worldly standards, and thus failed to understand and accept the meaning of Christ’s cross (cf. Mt 16:22). Even after saying that he was ready to give his life for Jesus, the mere suspicion that he was one of Christ’s disciples led him in fright to deny the Master (cf. Mk 14:66-72).

Jesus nonetheless loved Peter and was willing to take a risk on him. He encouraged Peter not to give up, to lower his nets once more, to walk on water, to find the strength to accept his own frailty, to follow him on the way of the cross, to give his life for his brothers and sisters, to shepherd his flock. In this way, Jesus set Peter free from fear, from calculations based solely on worldly concerns. He gave him the courage to risk everything and the joy of becoming a fisher of men. It was Peter whom Jesus called to strengthen his brothers in faith (cf. Lk 22:32). He gave him – as we heard in the Gospel – the keys to open the doors leading to an encounter with the Lord and the power to bind and loose: to bind his brothers and sisters to Christ and to loosen the knots and chains in their lives (cf. Mt 16:19).

All that was possible only because – as we heard in the first reading – Peter himself had been set free. The chains that held him prisoner were shattered and, as on the night when the Israelites were set free from bondage in Egypt, he was told to arise in haste, fasten his belt and put on his sandals in order to go forth. The Lord then opened the doors before him (cf. Acts 12:7-10). Here we see a new history of opening, liberation, broken chains, exodus from the house of bondage. Peter had a Passover experience: the Lord set him free.

Full text: Pope Francis’ homily on the Feast of St. Peter and Paul 2021

Here is the full text of Pope Francis’ homily on the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, delivered at Mass in the Basilica of St. Peter on June 29, 2021.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

 

[Grailhunter]

But you don't name the wars, nor do you give any historical context to these alleged "wars", and you have no documented proof that Catholics slaughtered pagans.

Well we can go over the wars and battles and conflicts and inquisitions and witch hunts....but I have been saying all along that it was not the bishops that suited up for battle. It was always the Empire or the Kingdoms that they were associated with. The Catholics would rule a group as heretics and because Church and state were one, the enemy of the Church was the enemy of the state. When the Catholic Church condemned a belief....excommunication sometimes got violent and it was the Empire or Kingdom that carried that out. At times the
Catholics Kingdoms were under direct attack....
Emperor Charlemagne defended Christianism, he conquered the Lombards (in present-day northern Italy), the Avars (in modern-day Austria and Hungary) and Bavaria, among others. Charlemagne waged a bloody, three decades-long series of battles against the Saxons, a Germanic tribe of pagans, and earned a reputation for ruthlessness. And conducted forced baptisms.
Pagan nature religions were consider witchcraft
Viking targeted churches and monasteries
The Cathars were massacred
Atilla the hun
the Magyar horsemen
Visigoths and Ostrogoths
Saxons
Of course the Crusades which start with the Pope calling for the conquest of Jerusalem.
Inquisitions was a direct branch of the Church and the torture documented and witnessed by Priests.
Between that and the witch-hunt the Church commissioned and financed and printed the torture manual called the Hammer of Witches. Which again these tortures were witnessed and documented by Priests. In modern times in some cases the Church has apologized for this.
Of course there were wars between Catholics and Protestants.

So what. Being the official religion of the Roman Empire does not automatically mean it was illegal not to be a Christian.

"punished the practice of pagan rituals" : another airhead assumption with no proof. IF some crazy Catholics did this, it was not endorsed by the CC, it was sinful. Again, provide primary and/or secondary documentation of Catholics officially punishing pagans. Simply asserting it doesn't make it true.

No this was the Emperor.....As I have said the Church had no power....all power was through the Empire doing the Church's bidding at times.

Let me guess. You reject the Nicene Creed, along with rejection of the whole Council of Nicaea of 325. That's why lies about Constantine are so important to you.

Never said anything about rejecting the Nicene Creed.

This nonsense has been refuted repeatedly, you are too proud to be corrected.

Pope Siricius the first person to hold the official title and office of Pope..... No this is matter of documented history.

Because "Pope" is an English word, and English did not exist as a language for several centuries. The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome. You are correct is claiming the English word "Pope" is not in the Bible, but the Greek word ‘pappas’ is definitely in the Bible.
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” (Greek pappas)
1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father (Greek 'pappas') in Christ Jesus.”
"Trinity" and "Incarnation" is not in the Bible either. Your word games are stupid.
I'm beginning to suspect you are another arrogant anti-trinitarian.

We have already went over this.....Pope is not exclusively from the Greek word that means papa or father. They used a Greek word and called it Pope. Every time you see the Greek word for papa or father it is not going to be translated to English as Pope. The term papa or father in the biblical era carried no meaning as a title or office. Besides that the Bible does not refer to Peter as Father Peter or Papa Peter or Pope Peter. All that occurred later on in Christian history. Do you think that Peter thought he was a Pope or "the" Christian leader at the time?

These anti-Peter arguments don't hold water, and have been refuted a million times.

What I have stated is in the Bible....are you saying the Bible is anti-Peter......Personally I like Peter but I keep my religion in the truth column.

More stupidity. The biblical and historical evidence is not folklore, you just deny, deny, deny.

Again the Bible does not call Peter the Pope and of course the Bible and history are not folklore.....what the Catholics have created is folklore.

The CC is not a billion+ strong because of convincing people. Non-Catholics and even anti-Catholics convert to Catholicism because they are called by God, not by convincing arguments. The testimonies of thousands affirms this. That day you speak of will never pass.

I did not say anything about "a day" and all Christian groups believe that people are lead to them by God.

Yup, and by the looks of your posts, you haven't figured it out either.

LOL You so funny.

Peter was an idiot at times. But it's easy to identify with Peter, not out of any sanctity on his own, but because he was a lot like us.

Well I agree that is part of the charm of Peter.....
A believer that had his up and downs.

 

[Illuminator]

Well we can go over the wars and battles and conflicts and inquisitions and witch hunts....but I have been saying all along that it was not the bishops that suited up for battle. It was always the Empire or the Kingdoms that they were associated with. The Catholics would rule a group as heretics and because Church and state were one, the enemy of the Church was the enemy of the state. When the Catholic Church condemned a belief....excommunication sometimes got violent and it was the Empire or Kingdom that carried that out. At times the
Catholics Kingdoms were under direct attack....
Emperor Charlemagne defended Christianism, he conquered the Lombards (in present-day northern Italy), the Avars (in modern-day Austria and Hungary) and Bavaria, among others. Charlemagne waged a bloody, three decades-long series of battles against the Saxons, a Germanic tribe of pagans, and earned a reputation for ruthlessness. And conducted forced baptisms.
Pagan nature religions were consider witchcraft
Viking targeted churches and monasteries
The Cathars were massacred
Atilla the hun
the Magyar horsemen
Visigoths and Ostrogoths
Saxons
Of course the Crusades which start with the Pope calling for the conquest of Jerusalem.
Inquisitions was a direct branch of the Church and the torture documented and witnessed by Priests.
Between that and the witch-hunt the Church commissioned and financed and printed the torture manual called the Hammer of Witches. Which again these tortures were witnessed and documented by Priests. In modern times in some cases the Church has apologized for this.
Of course there were wars between Catholics and Protestants.

Over 15 historical events that would take a book to analyze. It's a rant because your nose is out of joint. "Pope calling for the conquest of Jerusalem" is absurd, it highlights your prejudice.

No this was the Emperor.....As I have said the Church had no power....all power was through the Empire doing the Church's bidding at times.

Never said anything about rejecting the Nicene Creed.

I said I was guessing, so do you reject the Nicene Creed and the Council that approved it??? Do you reject the doctrine of the Trinity because that word is not in the Bible??? Oh, pardon me, I forgot anti-Catholics don't answer questions.

No doubt some episcopates did some stupid things, but the historic Church never taught errors on faith and morals, and you guys have failed to prove otherwise for 500 years.

Pope Siricius the first person to hold the official title and office of Pope..... No this is matter of documented history.

Documented according to liars and revisionists.

We have already went over this.....Pope is not exclusively from the Greek word that means papa or father. They used a Greek word and called it Pope. Every time you see the Greek word for papa or father it is not going to be translated to English as Pope. The term papa or father in the biblical era carried no meaning as a title or office. Besides that the Bible does not refer to Peter as Father Peter or Papa Peter or Pope Peter. All that occurred later on in Christian history.

DENIAL, DENIAL DENIAL.
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” (Greek pappas)
1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father (Greek 'pappas') in Christ Jesus.”

Do you think that Peter thought he was a Pope or "the" Christian leader at the time?

Paul thought so. That's why he went to Peter, James and John to make sure his gospel was the same as theirs,(Acts 2:2) not the other way around. Jesus thought so too.
Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Did the Father ignore Jesus' prayer? What does "strengthen thy brethren" imply? That he is leader of the Apostles. You need to reason it out instead of being a textual zombie.

What I have stated is in the Bible....are you saying the Bible is anti-Peter......Personally I like Peter but I keep my religion in the truth column.

No, what YOU have stated is anti-Peter nonsense, contrary to the Bible. Your "truth column" is heavily influenced by anti-Catholic polemics and biased histories. What kind of religion demonizes another's beliefs the way you do?

Again the Bible does not call Peter the Pope and of course the Bible and history are not folklore.....what the Catholics have created is folklore.

Another airhead assertion contrary to the evidence presented. You are too proud to be corrected.

I did not say anything about "a day" and all Christian groups believe that people are lead to them by God.

LOL You so funny.

LOL. You can't read. I wasn't talking about all Christian groups, I was talking about converts to Catholicism being called by God, and I gave a link to MANY testimonies that you are forced to ignore.
Here it is again.

Well I agree that is part of the charm of Peter.....
A believer that had his up and downs.

Post #452 puts your "perspective, perspective" in the toilet.

 

[Grailhunter]

Over 15 historical events that would take a book to analyze. It's a rant because your nose is out of joint. "Pope calling for the conquest of Jerusalem" is absurd, it highlights your prejudice.

Nose not out of joint.....not a rant.....Are you assuming that I was disagreeing with the Crusades'?

I said I was guessing, so do you reject the Nicene Creed and the Council that approved it??? Do you reject the doctrine of the Trinity because that word is not in the Bible???

To be precise I believe in
The Apostles' Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

Yahweh....God the Father....a full fledged God....creator of heaven and earth.
Yeshua.....God the Son....a full fledged God....Messiah....Savior.
Holy Spirit....the unnamed God....a full fledged God....guide, nurturer, helper, communicator.

I do not believe in the one person God formula for the Trinity....Tri-unity as opposed to Tri-one. A Godhead. Not one as we understand one and not separate as we understand separate.

The first council at Nicaea
Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the
Father, the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed, mandating uniform observance of the date of Easter, and promulgation of early canon law. Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father, the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed, mandating uniform observance of the date of Easter, and promulgation of early canon law.

DENIAL, DENIAL DENIAL.
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” (Greek pappas)
1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father (Greek 'pappas') in Christ Jesus.”

Facts, facts, facts
Christ said, call no man father.....not sure exactly what he meant by that but no Apostle in the Bible called Father Peter or Father John etc certainly not Pope.

Paul thought so. That's why he went to Peter, James and John to make sure his gospel was the same as theirs,(Acts 2:2) not the other way around.

Act 2:2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. What??

No, what YOU have stated is anti-Peter nonsense, contrary to the Bible. Your "truth column" is heavily influenced by anti-Catholic polemics and biased histories.

No I have stated what is in the Bible, do you want me to copy and paste it here?

Another airhead assertion contrary to the evidence presented. You are too proud to be corrected.

Find the word Pope in the scriptures or an Apostle being address as Father John as Father being a title.

LOL. You can't read. I wasn't talking about all Christian groups, I was talking about converts to Catholicism being called by God, and I gave a link to MANY testimonies that you are forced to ignore.

Like I said, all Christian denominations say that.....Don't you think we can find a Baptist testimonial that would say pretty much the same thing.

Post #452 puts your perspective, perspective in the toilet.

Ya but you are toilet paper.

 

[Illuminator]

50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy

Reply To Critique Of "50 NT Proofs For The Papacy" (vs. Jason Engwer)

Anti-Catholic Jason Engwer replied to my paper on "50 NT Proofs for the Papacy" with a failed satirical "Pauline Papacy" argument. This is my counter-reply.

www.patheos.com

Primacy Of St. Peter Verified By Protestant Scholars

Protestant scholars on Catholic claims regarding the primacy of St. Peter ("Rock", Keys, Binding & loosing, strengthening brethren, feeding sheep, etc.).

www.patheos.com

III. Catholic Apostolic Development vs. Protestant Subjectivity and Circularity

Anybody who knows much about church history knows why Catholic apologists appeal so often to development of doctrine.

We appeal to it because it is an undeniable historical fact. If Protestants accept development of trinitarianism or the canon of the New Testament, then it is not improper for us to accept development of the papacy, or Marian doctrines, etc. Mr. White locates the difference of principle in alleged lack vs. abundance of biblical support. We assert that we have biblical (as well as patristic) support for our views.
The Protestant disagrees.

But the criterion for the Protestant — when their view is closely scrutinized — reduces to mere subjectivism according to Protestant preconceived notions (depending on denominational tradition, of course), whereas for the Catholic it is historically demonstrable unbroken apostolic Tradition, developed over 2000 years.

In any event, the controversy cannot be settled by a disdain for the very concept of development (which seems implied above), as if it were improper to utilize it at all in the discussion of historical theology.

Dialogue On Development Of Doctrine (Esp. The Papacy)

Substantive dialogue with Protestant apologist Jason Engwer, on the definition and application of development of doctrine: especially regarding the papacy.

www.patheos.com

 

[NayborBear]

Isaiah 28:
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

Hence all the arguing!

Love "covers" a multitude of sin!

BUT WAIT!....THERE'S MORE!!!!

17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

20 For the bed......(let's call this bed that "love" which covers a multitude of sin).... is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.

....almost as entertaining as reading the funny papers.

A good interpretation I heard just the other day in the first couple of verses of John 14 is: Of the 10,000 things God does in/and to/for a person in their spiritual as well as flesh walk?
Most people, not to mention "denominations" may only understand 3 or 4 of these things.

 

[Illuminator]

Reply to Steve Hays' Caricatures of the Papacy Reply to Steve Hays' Caricatures of the Papacy

The late Steve Hays (please pray for his soul) was a Protestant Reformed, anti-Catholic apologist, very active online, who ran the site, Triablogue. I am I systematically dismantle the caricatures of the papacy invented by the late anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant apologist Steve Hays, from the...

www.patheos.com

 

[BreadOfLife]

You do not know history much....right. You need to dive into that. Learn a little history about the changes Emperor Constantine made to the empire to accommodate Christianity and the wars it fought to protect them and the battles with the heretics....Bishops did not mount horses with swords to fight with these people.

Constantine completely altered the relationship between the church and the imperial government, thereby beginning a process that eventually made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Then you need to study Constantine's project in the building of Constantinople. The money and labor to build that city did not come from the Church and it was dedicated to Christianity.

Here is a little bit.....take notes....

In 313 AD, the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which accepted Christianity: 10 years later, it had become the official religion of the Roman Empire.

On February 27, 380, in Thessaloniki, the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius I (347 - 395) signed a decree in the presence of the Western Roman Emperor Valentinian II (371 - 392) that made Christianity the religion of the state and punished the practice of pagan rituals.

Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire when Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, which recognized the catholic orthodoxy of Nicene Christians in the Great Church as the Roman Empire's state religion.

Emperor Constantine legalized the practice of Christianity in 313, and it became the state religion in 380. Germanic invaders of Roman territory in the 5th and 6th centuries, many of whom had previously adopted Arian Christianity, eventually adopted Catholicism to ally themselves with the papacy and the monasteries.

Constantine endowed Christians with funds to build their basilicas and to acquire property,

Pope Siricius the first person to hold the official title and office of Pope.....
And I am saying the office nor the authority existed at that time.

This is a flat-out LIE, as I have already PROVEN this to be false by presenting actual historical documentatioon from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
You LOSE this argument . . .

I did not say that Peter was not an important Apostle. Great guy....and mentioned in the Bible but never called a Pope.

Mary Magdalene topped nearly every female list....does that make her a Popette?

Paul is the most mentioned Apostle in the Bible and the most literarily prolific. Paul is the Apostle that made the most theological impact on Christianity and outside of the Gospels today the most quoted.

Christ talked to Peter about his leadership and the keys.....but the Bible does not show him being in a leadership role above any other Apostle. Shortly after the conversation with Peter about being the rock....Christ called him Satan.....Then down the road Christ knowing his cowardly character, told him that he would deny him 3 times.....and he did!

Perspective! perspective!
Don't get me wrong. I do not hold it against the Catholics for coming up with all these stories and folklore about Peter. It is normal.... human nature....common. People will exaggerate about admired and beloved historical figures. I think the Catholics feel like they need a special connection with Christianity, but they do not need it, they are the oldest....largest Christian Church. Back in the day they may have felt they needed to convince people.....but that day is past. Consider yourself fortunate, the Catholic Church has all that history, all the Protestants have is the book and after 500 years and tens of thousands of denominations they still cannot figure it out.

The thing with Peter is a lot like George Washington....People loved him when he was alive and long there after. So may stories and tall tales were promulgated until he was like a god. Historians tried to track his every move and every word he said.....LOL where he slept turned out to be more like who he slept with. It is all normal so it does not bother me that the Catholics idolize Peter.

You ignorantly conflate tradition with mere “folklore” because you don’t have any REAL answers.

Filling in the “blanks” with your opinions doesn’t mean that your opinions are valid. It simply means that because YOU can’t figure out the past because of laziness or whatever – it must not be so.

Paul tells us in 2 Thessalonians:
2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Notice he doesn’t say – “Only go by what you READ in the Bible.” There wasn’t even a compiled NT Canon until the Catholic Church declared it in the 4th century – so ORAL Tradition was as important in the Early Church as it was for the Jews in the OT.

Oral Tradition is TAUFHT in the in the NT:
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the Apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exod. 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Over and over again, the Early Church Father appeal to the traditions handed down to them by the Apostles.

Irenaeus
For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription of Heretics 19 [A.D. 200]).

Origen
Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 [circa A.D. 225]).

Eusebius
While [Ignatius of Antioch] was making the journey through Asia under the strictest military guard, he strengthened the diocese in each city where he stayed by spoken sermons and exhortations, and he especially exhorted them above all to be on their guard against the heresies which then for the first time were prevalent and he urged them to hold fast to the tradition of the Apostles to which he thought it necessary, for securities sake, to give form by written testimony (Ecclesiastical History, 3:36 [A.D. 325]).

This isn’t about “folklore” or “idolizing” Peter.
It’s about the Word of God being passed doesn through the SAME Oral Tradition that sustains the People of God from the very beginning – YOUR lack of faith, notwithstanding . . .

 

[GRACE ambassador]

op: one true church?
@Illuminator: "The Lord does not want there to be a separation between Catholics and Protestants."?

Actually, The LORD Commands ALL "the members of HIS [ Heavenly ] Body (One
True Church)" (no matter which earthly religion they are attached to), who are:

"...Called Into Fellowship With God's SON, The LORD JESUS CHRIST," (v9) to obey
These:

1Co 1:10 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by The Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye
be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."
(1 Corinthians 1:10 KJB):
+
"Endeavouring to keep The Unity Of God's Spirit In The Bond Of
PEACE!..." (Ephesians 4:3 KJB)
+
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye Separate, Saith
The LORD, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"
(2 Corinthians 6:17 KJB)

But, sadly, probably not very likely Until Great Grace Departure, eh?
----------------------
Grace, Peace, And JOY In Christ, And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided (+ I and II)!