Why do they hate being called Christians

[BreadOfLife]

Hi BreadOfLife,

Wasn't Ignatius just talking about the catholic church (with a small "c") or universal church? All Christians living at the time? I can't imagine in 107AD there were any other churches competing with each other like we have today.

BTW....I am non-denominational and just follow the facts or history as long as it leads me to the truth.

Mary

What makes you think that there were "competing" Churches during the time of Ignatius? He simply stated the name of the Catholic Church in his letter and spoke of the "heterodox" people who didn't submit to the Authority and doctrines of the Church. There was the Church and there were heretics like the Gnostics. There were no "denominations" until the 16th century after the Protestant Revolt.

Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John.

Ignatius of [SIZE=10pt]Antioch[/SIZE]
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

[BreadOfLife]

But was he talking about the Babylonian Catholic Church? Again.... A hijack of history.

The "Babylonian" Catholic Church??
He was talking about THE Catholic Church - and there has only ever been ONE.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hi BreadOfLife,

Wasn't Ignatius just talking about the catholic church (with a small "c") or universal church? All Christians living at the time? I can't imagine in 107AD there were any other churches competing with each other like we have today.

BTW....I am non-denominational and just follow the facts or history as long as it leads me to the truth.

Mary

No - the term "Catholic Church" was used as a title - not a description.
As i stated before - it is also used as a title in the document "The martyrdom of Polycarp" - LONG before FHII's fictitious timing of the "300's".

 

[Marymog]

What makes you think that there were "competing" Churches during the time of Ignatius? He simply stated the name of the Catholic Church in his letter and spoke of the "heterodox" people who didn't submit to the Authority and doctrines of the Church. There was the Church and there were heretics like the Gnostics. There were no "denominations" until the 16th century after the Protestant Revolt.

Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John.

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

I thought there were competing churches since scripture says there was division in the early church when the apostles were alive. That means men, who were not approved by the apostles, were teaching a different doctrine and they were causing division in the church. Which was the reason for the Council of Jerusalem. Also: Romans 16:17-18, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, Titus 3:9-11.

Are you saying the men who caused these divisions didn't start there own churches? They were chastised by the church leaders and apostles and fell right into line?

I believe they did start their own churches but they were so small in number that history didn't record them. The Gnostics and Donatism are in our history books. The smaller uprisings probably were forgotten about because they were so small.

Scripture, the Apostolic Fathers and the early Church fathers speak of division in the church so it has been going on since Jesus death. So what I mean by competing churches is: Men starting their own church in their house but maybe it wasn't important enough to make it in our history books. Does that make sense?

Sadly, it continues today.

Hope I cleared things up.

Mary

 

[FHII]

The "Babylonian" Catholic Church??
He was talking about THE Catholic Church - and there has only ever been ONE.

Yes.... The Babylonian Catholic Church. That is... The church that is headquartered in Vatican City around Rome, Italy.

I read that quote from Ignatious of ANTIOCH.... Didn't see anything aboutRome, Babylon or the Vatican there.... Again, hijacked history.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I thought there were competing churches since scripture says there was division in the early church when the apostles were alive. That means men, who were not approved by the apostles, were teaching a different doctrine and they were causing division in the church. Which was the reason for the Council of Jerusalem. Also: Romans 16:17-18, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, Titus 3:9-11.

Are you saying the men who caused these divisions didn't start there own churches? They were chastised by the church leaders and apostles and fell right into line?

I believe they did start their own churches but they were so small in number that history didn't record them. The Gnostics and Donatism are in our history books. The smaller uprisings probably were forgotten about because they were so small.

Scripture, the Apostolic Fathers and the early Church fathers speak of division in the church so it has been going on since Jesus death. So what I mean by competing churches is: Men starting their own church in their house but maybe it wasn't important enough to make it in our history books. Does that make sense?

Sadly, it continues today.

Hope I cleared things up.

Mary

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

There is ONE Church. The Judaizers, Gnostics, Donatists, Arians, Nestorians and the rest were heretics - not Catholics. They were teaching perverted doctrines and fell away from the Church and from the Truth.

And you're right - this continues to this day because of the spiritual pride of mere men who refuse to submit to the God-given authority of His Church (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes.... The Babylonian Catholic Church. That is... The church that is headquartered in Vatican City around Rome, Italy.

I read that quote from Ignatious of ANTIOCH.... Didn't see anything aboutRome, Babylon or the Vatican there.... Again, hijacked history.

"Hijacked" history?? Hijacked from what, exactly??
So, if Ignatius mentioned Rome - you would become Catholic??

 

[epostle1]

Yes.... The Babylonian Catholic Church. That is... The church that is headquartered in Vatican City around Rome, Italy.

I read that quote from Ignatious of ANTIOCH.... Didn't see anything aboutRome, Babylon or the Vatican there.... Again, hijacked history.

There is not a shred of evidence supporting your psychotic myth making. Since you claim to know history, show something scholarly, not the drivel you get from nut jobs on you tube. The first 40 popes were killed by pagan Romans, but that means nothing to anti-Catholics who are forced to re-write history to make it fit their man made systems.

CATHOLIC comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.
It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

It is inferred in Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world." That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.
(which begs the question: When did Jesus go back on His promise and abandon His Church?)

Rom. 1:8 ….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATAnggeletai Gk.) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo Gk.)” (KATAHOLO)

Acts 9:31 "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama'ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied."

There the words "church throughout all" is translated from the Greek words "Ecclesia KATAHOLIS"
Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8, Acts 9:31
But it was after Ignatius that the term Catholic Church became used more and more to designate the true church.

"Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D.,

Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.
St. Ignatius was the 3rd bishop of Antioch and knew St. John the Apostle.

"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled"
Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 A.D. 155.

Other written records of the term "CATHOLIC" describing a character of the Christian Church:

Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name."
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.

 

[FHII]

"Hijacked" history?? Hijacked from what, exactly??
So, if Ignatius mentioned Rome - you would become Catholic??

Yes BoL... Hijacked. From what? Proper historical perspective and context.

Ignatius didn't mention Rome so that is a irrelevant question. In fact, he appears to be speaking against the idea that the Church had one central location. He's speaking of the importance of a bishop. You catholic folk just go ga-ga that the term was used and thus immediately - without proper context - take it to mean the church at Babylon.

That is the simple truth BoL... Amd its true that you are hijacking history by calling Peter and various other bishops "popes" when they themselves did no such thing.

 

[epostle1]

Yes BoL... Hijacked. From what? Proper historical perspective and context.

Ignatius didn't mention Rome so that is a irrelevant question. In fact, he appears to be speaking against the idea that the Church had one central location. He's speaking of the importance of a bishop. You catholic folk just go ga-ga that the term was used and thus immediately - without proper context - take it to mean the church at Babylon.

That is the simple truth BoL... Amd its true that you are hijacking history by calling Peter and various other bishops "popes" when they themselves did no such thing.

Ignatius not mentioning Rome from one quote is a red herring to the fact that he taught essentially the same thing about the Eucharist as what the Church teaches today. That's called consistency, something you lack. That's why you don't like Ignatius.

I'm still waiting for scholarly evidence that supports your comic book view of history. All you offer is hate propaganda.

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church wich also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.
—Letter to the Romans, Intro

Ignatius confirms—as do other Church Fathers—that this authoritative Church at Rome was founded by Peter and Paul:
Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles and I am a convict. They were free, and I even to the present time am a slave. —Letter to the Romans, Ch 4

I can move on to other Early Church Fathers, but what would be the point? You have nothing to do with the early church. You don't accept any of them because none of them were 21st century fundamentalist bible cultists.

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. Because the term was not used for some time does not mean the office didn't exist, it means the term wasn't used exclusively for the pope for 3 centuries..

The first to challenge Peter being in Rome were the Waldensian heretics, but no one mounted a major assault until the early 19th century. It is a man made tradition.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes BoL... Hijacked. From what? Proper historical perspective and context.

Ignatius didn't mention Rome so that is a irrelevant question. In fact, he appears to be speaking against the idea that the Church had one central location. He's speaking of the importance of a bishop. You catholic folk just go ga-ga that the term was used and thus immediately - without proper context - take it to mean the church at Babylon.

That is the simple truth BoL... Amd its true that you are hijacking history by calling Peter and various other bishops "popes" when they themselves did no such thing.

Well - I was going to respond - but I see that Kepha31 has already given you a much needed historical spanking in posts 108 & 110..
'Nuff said . . .

 

[FHII]

Well - I was going to respond - but I see that Kepha31 has already given you a much needed historical spanking in posts 108 & 110..
'Nuff said . . .

Oh really? I didn't really find it worth responding to. Easy to refute, but not worthwhile. But, ok...

 

[FHII]

Ignatius not mentioning Rome from one quote is a red herring to the fact that he taught essentially the same thing about the Eucharist as what the Church teaches today. That's called consistency, something you lack. That's why you don't like Ignatius.

I'm still waiting for scholarly evidence that supports your comic book view of history. All you offer is hate propaganda.

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church wich also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.
—Letter to the Romans, Intro

Ignatius confirms—as do other Church Fathers—that this authoritative Church at Rome was founded by Peter and Paul:
Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles and I am a convict. They were free, and I even to the present time am a slave. —Letter to the Romans, Ch 4

I can move on to other Early Church Fathers, but what would be the point? You have nothing to do with the early church. You don't accept any of them because none of them were 21st century fundamentalist bible cultists.

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. Because the term was not used for some time does not mean the office didn't exist, it means the term wasn't used exclusively for the pope for 3 centuries..

The first to challenge Peter being in Rome were the Waldensian heretics, but no one mounted a major assault until the early 19th century. It is a man made tradition.

1. Ignatius didn't mention or even refer to Rome in the entire letter. The mention of the catholic church (which means universal, but more properly "pertaining to the whole") was an example to show the importance of church leadership: WHICH I AGREE WITH! I've never been shy about that point.

The point was that a church needs a leader and where that leader goes the church should be also just like where Christ was, the fullness of the Church is.

It wasn't an endorsement of Rome.

2. Who said I didn't like Ignatius? Where did you get that? Answer: nowhere! This is one of the many reasons why I didn't see this as worth responding to. There are some things in this particular letter I disagree with based on Biblical teachings Paul laid down.... But that is not currently part of the discussion.

3. I lack consistency? Really? I have consistently based my beliefs on the Bible. And I follow a pastor that bases teaching on the Bible. Not necessarily what others in the past have done.

4. You tell me exactly what I said that is "comic book history" and hate filled propoganda and I will address it. I am not the one misrepresenting what Ignatius said!

5. You listed a quote from his letter to the Romans and claim that a) the church at Rome was authoritative (i presume you mean over all other churches) and b ) it was started by Peter and Paul.

NEITHER IS TRUE!

Was that church authorative? Sure.. In Rome. Just as the church at Antioch was authorative in Antioch. Just as the church at Smyrna was authorative in Smyrna. Did he say it was started by Peter and Paul? No. You simply spliced the letter and hooked up two parts to make it sound as if Peter and Paul started the World's biggest megachurch.

In reality, what was he saying? He was saying, "look, I am coming there to be martyed. Let it happen. Then everyone will know I am really a disciple of Christ, unlike Peter and Paul who were Apostles. They were free and currently I am a convict and a slave."

How do you get Peter and Paul started the Catholic Church from that? You can't! That's not even an acknowledgement they were in Rome (though I know Paul was and believe Peter was too).

My opinion: I don't agree with Ignatius here. Peter and Paul were both convicts too. They were also the Lord's free man, as was Ignatius. But i give Ignatius a pass on that as he was under heavy stress.


6. You want to move to other church fathers?!?! Well go ahead! You might as well as you ain't doing so great with Ignatius!

21st century fundamental cult... Give me a break!

7. Pope? Where was any apostle called such in the Bible? Never! Do you think Peter or Linus would've acceped the term? I doubt it. But my poi t is that Catholics hijack history when they claim ANY former bishop of Rome as a Pope in the current Catholic Church's lime of succession.

You do the same thing with them that you are doing with Ignatius. They did what they did and you are claiming it was your church's all along. WRONG!

Now that I have given you the facts, let me give you my opinion:

1. There would be nothing wrong with saying the Babylonian Catholic Church got its practices and doctrines from earlier sources. (That wouldn't make them Biblically sound but it would at leasy be truthful in where you got them)

2. I actually like the early Church fathers... But again... The Babylonian Catholic Church can't claim them as their as their own. Even so... Just because they were early doesn't make them right.

3. Kelpha... If you really want me to respond to your posts... Have some respect. And do better with the facts! I am only responding cause BoL (for whatever reason) thought alot of your post. And before any of you go off on me referring to you Church as Babylonian... Hey... That's y'alls doing, not mine!

You folks thinks so much of 1 pete 5:13... I'm just calling you what your hijacked first Pope called it!

And frankly... He called it well!

 

[BreadOfLife]

1. Ignatius didn't mention or even refer to Rome in the entire letter. The mention of the catholic church (which means universal, but more properly "pertaining to the whole") was an example to show the importance of church leadership: WHICH I AGREE WITH! I've never been shy about that point.

The point was that a church needs a leader and where that leader goes the church should be also just like where Christ was, the fullness of the Church is.

It wasn't an endorsement of Rome.

2. Who said I didn't like Ignatius? Where did you get that? Answer: nowhere! This is one of the many reasons why I didn't see this as worth responding to. There are some things in this particular letter I disagree with based on Biblical teachings Paul laid down.... But that is not currently part of the discussion.

3. I lack consistency? Really? I have consistently based my beliefs on the Bible. And I follow a pastor that bases teaching on the Bible. Not necessarily what others in the past have done.

4. You tell me exactly what I said that is "comic book history" and hate filled propoganda and I will address it. I am not the one misrepresenting what Ignatius said!

5. You listed a quote from his letter to the Romans and claim that a) the church at Rome was authoritative (i presume you mean over all other churches) and b ) it was started by Peter and Paul.

NEITHER IS TRUE!

Was that church authorative? Sure.. In Rome. Just as the church at Antioch was authorative in Antioch. Just as the church at Smyrna was authorative in Smyrna. Did he say it was started by Peter and Paul? No. You simply spliced the letter and hooked up two parts to make it sound as if Peter and Paul started the World's biggest megachurch.

In reality, what was he saying? He was saying, "look, I am coming there to be martyed. Let it happen. Then everyone will know I am really a disciple of Christ, unlike Peter and Paul who were Apostles. They were free and currently I am a convict and a slave."

How do you get Peter and Paul started the Catholic Church from that? You can't! That's not even an acknowledgement they were in Rome (though I know Paul was and believe Peter was too).

My opinion: I don't agree with Ignatius here. Peter and Paul were both convicts too. They were also the Lord's free man, as was Ignatius. But i give Ignatius a pass on that as he was under heavy stress.


6. You want to move to other church fathers?!?! Well go ahead! You might as well as you ain't doing so great with Ignatius!

21st century fundamental cult... Give me a break!

7. Pope? Where was any apostle called such in the Bible? Never! Do you think Peter or Linus would've acceped the term? I doubt it. But my poi t is that Catholics hijack history when they claim ANY former bishop of Rome as a Pope in the current Catholic Church's lime of succession.

You do the same thing with them that you are doing with Ignatius. They did what they did and you are claiming it was your church's all along. WRONG!

Now that I have given you the facts, let me give you my opinion:

1. There would be nothing wrong with saying the Babylonian Catholic Church got its practices and doctrines from earlier sources. (That wouldn't make them Biblically sound but it would at leasy be truthful in where you got them)

2. I actually like the early Church fathers... But again... The Babylonian Catholic Church can't claim them as their as their own. Even so... Just because they were early doesn't make them right.

3. Kelpha... If you really want me to respond to your posts... Have some respect. And do better with the facts! I am only responding cause BoL (for whatever reason) thought alot of your post. And before any of you go off on me referring to you Church as Babylonian... Hey... That's y'alls doing, not mine!

You folks thinks so much of 1 pete 5:13... I'm just calling you what your hijacked first Pope called it!

And frankly... He called it well!

The impotence of your response can be summed up in the following phrase: "My opinion: "I don't agree".

YOUR position from post #95 is:
"It seems that the term ("Catholic") probably came up in the 300's then. "

BOTH Kepha31 and I shattered that myth with irrefutable historical and linguistic evidence. I gave you no less than TWO examples of the term "Catholic" being used as a TITLE - long before your fictitious time period of the "300s". Kepha 31 educated you on the origin of the title.

Your woefully ignorant objections about the term "Pope" are almost comical - if not simply downright sad.
This is not the title of the Bishop of Rome - but a term of endearment that grew over time. It comes from the Latin term for "Father" (Papa). It wouldn't be in the Bible but neither are the basic Christian terns "Trinity" and "Incarnation".

Finally - as to your hysterical fallacy that Peter and Paul weren't in Rome together that would come as a complete surprise to the Early Church.
But, I'm sure YOU know more than they did . . .

​

Dionysius of Corinth​

You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).

Irenaeus​

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all 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 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

​

Tertullian​

Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

​

Eusebius​

The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).

​

Peter of Alexandria​

Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).

​

Lactantius​

When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).

​

Cyril of Jerusalem​

[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).

Damasus
The first See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at [SIZE=10pt]Alexandria[/SIZE], consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]


Do your HOMEWORK . . .

 

[FHII]

I am only going to respond to one thing you said Bread of Life, to so the sheer idiocy of you response and that of kelpha.


You said:
"Finally - as to your hysterical fallacy that Peter and Paul weren't in Rome together that would come as a complete surprise to the Early Church.
But, I'm sure YOU know more than they did . . ."

Listen... Never once did I ever state that peter and paul weren't in Rome together. The fact is that I know Paul was in Rome and I believe Peter was too. Together? Never stated an opinion (and by the way, my opinions are based on facts, evidence and reasoning) that they weren't. In fact, i suspect they were.

There you have it! I say peter and paul both were in Rome! At the same time? Yes. Possible! Even probable! What I did say is that there is

SCANT
BIBLICAL
EVIDENCE

that Peter was in Rome. "Scant" does not mean "none". That's news to one of you Catholic geniuses who accused me of saying there was no evidence... And its news to what you are inferring.

1 peter 5:13... Peter refers to Babylon. He doesn't say he was there but i accept that it infers he was. Never denied that!

I have stated that I don't believe Peter was bishop in Rome for 25 years... I gave sound reasoning for that. What did I get? "Well it doesn't mean 25 consecutive years!" when I proved that wrong too I got, "well... He didn't have to be in Rome to betheir Bishop"

Yea.. He did! Ignatius agrees with me! Wherw the bishop is, the people should assemble.

Damn! I don't know how long I have been on this board, but never do I ever remember saying peter and Paul weren't in Rome!


And thats just one of your quotes. Everything else is just as stupid and misleading.


Maybe one day a catholic will come around and increase my opinion in the Catholic Church... But so far I think less of them based on the testimonials here.

 

[FHII]

No.... I just can't let all this be:

You said,
The impotence of your response can be summed up in the following phrase: "My opinion: "I don't agree".


Yea... Typical. You once again take a partial quote of what I said.you don't discuss what I don't agree with. You simply pull this out of context.

What is it I don't agree with? You don't say! Maybe you might have a point! But you don't even adress the full quote! You just nite that I don't agree.

I will debate any Catholic with respect on doctrine or history if it is done hinestly and amicably. But I don't see that happening here.

 

[epostle1]

1. Ignatius didn't mention or even refer to Rome in the entire letter. The mention of the catholic church (which means universal, but more properly "pertaining to the whole") was an example to show the importance of church leadership: WHICH I AGREE WITH! I've never been shy about that point.

The point was that a church needs a leader and where that leader goes the church should be also just like where Christ was, the fullness of the Church is.

It wasn't an endorsement of Rome.

2. Who said I didn't like Ignatius? Where did you get that? Answer: nowhere! This is one of the many reasons why I didn't see this as worth responding to. There are some things in this particular letter I disagree with based on Biblical teachings Paul laid down.... But that is not currently part of the discussion.

3. I lack consistency? Really? I have consistently based my beliefs on the Bible. And I follow a pastor that bases teaching on the Bible. Not necessarily what others in the past have done.

No, your beliefs are based on reformist opinions of the Bible, and their offshoots of offshoots of offshoots. Sola scriptura is a reformist opinion, and it is found NOWHERE in the Bible.

4. You tell me exactly what I said that is "comic book history" and hate filled propoganda and I will address it. I am not the one misrepresenting what Ignatius said!

Bablyon Catholic Church is hate propaganda, is highly insulting, and it proves your ignorance of early church history. That's the language of historical clowns like Jack Chick, Dave Hunt, Alexander Hyslop, legions of liars and bigots. How can I misrepresent what Ignatius said when I quoted him ver batum?

5. You listed a quote from his letter to the Romans and claim that a) the church at Rome was authoritative (i presume you mean over all other churches) and b ) it was started by Peter and Paul.

NEITHER IS TRUE!

It's a historical fact, unless you get your history from some clown. Produce some scholarly evidence from a real Ph.D. historian that agrees with you. Good luck, you'll need it.

Was that church authorative? Sure.. In Rome. Just as the church at Antioch was authorative in Antioch. Just as the church at Smyrna was authorative in Smyrna. Did he say it was started by Peter and Paul? No. You simply spliced the letter and hooked up two parts to make it sound as if Peter and Paul started the World's biggest megachurch.

He didn't have to say it explicitly, but you will dismiss all the other ECF that say the Church in Rome was the center of authority. You do that because they don't fit your man made system. You have nothing in common with the 1st,2nd, and 3rd century Church, so you have to tear it down to force it to look like yours.

In reality, what was he saying? He was saying, "look, I am coming there to be martyed. Let it happen. Then everyone will know I am really a disciple of Christ, unlike Peter and Paul who were Apostles. They were free and currently I am a convict and a slave."

And you accuse me of misrepresenting Ignatius???

 

[epostle1]

How do you get Peter and Paul started the Catholic Church from that? You can't! That's not even an acknowledgement they were in Rome (though I know Paul was and believe Peter was too).

That's not what I said. Read the quote by Ignatius in post #110. He acknowledges the Church in Rome to be the center of teaching authority. Peter and Paul did not start the Catholic Church, they were being obedient to Christ's command to teach all nations....Jesus Christ started the Catholic Church and I showed scripture showing the origins of "kataholis", Catholic. Does the name of your church originate in the Bible? Or within the last 10 years?

My opinion: I don't agree with Ignatius here.

Of course you don't. He's not a paranoid fundamentalist screaming about Babble-on.

Peter and Paul were both convicts too. They were also the Lord's free man, as was Ignatius. But i give Ignatius a pass on that as he was under heavy stress.

Peter and Paul served in Rome long enough to establish a church. We don't know how many visits Peter made there, probably more than one, which would explain Paul's letter to the Romans. A bishop is required to establish a church, not any individual believer. We don't know how long Peter serves as an Apostle before his martyrdom, but we know it was before Paul.

6. You want to move to other church fathers?!?! Well go ahead! You might as well as you ain't doing so great with Ignatius!

You have no use for the consensus of the other ECF so quoting them would be pointless.

21st century fundamental cult... Give me a break!

Then stop the 21st century bible cult insults taught by liars.

7. Pope? Where was any apostle called such in the Bible? Never! Do you think Peter or Linus would've acceped the term? I doubt it. But my poi t is that Catholics hijack history when they claim ANY former bishop of Rome as a Pope in the current Catholic Church's lime of succession.

See post #110, the one you ignored.

You do the same thing with them that you are doing with Ignatius. They did what they did and you are claiming it was your church's all along. WRONG!

I have the facts of history, and on top of that, the writings of the earliest Christians (which you arrogantly dismiss).

Now that I have given you the facts, let me give you my opinion:

You haven't given any facts, just opinion.

1. There would be nothing wrong with saying the Babylonian Catholic Church got its practices and doctrines from earlier sources. (That wouldn't make them Biblically sound but it would at leasy be truthful in where you got them)
2. I actually like the early Church fathers... But again... The Babylonian Catholic Church can't claim them as their as their own. Even so... Just because they were early doesn't make them right.

Is Catholicism Pagan? <<invisible to those with blind prejudice

Not everything that all the ECF said was right, but their general consensus was. I would say infallible.

Have fun playing in my ignorasium.

 

[epostle1]

But was he talking about the Babylonian Catholic Church? Again.... A hijack of history.

Yes.... The Babylonian Catholic Church. That is... The church that is headquartered in Vatican City around Rome, Italy.

I read that quote from Ignatious of ANTIOCH.... Didn't see anything aboutRome, Babylon or the Vatican there.... Again, hijacked history.

1. There would be nothing wrong with saying the Babylonian Catholic Church got its practices and doctrines from earlier sources. (That wouldn't make them Biblically sound but it would at leasy be truthful in where you got them)



2. I actually like the early Church fathers... But again... The Babylonian Catholic Church can't claim them as their as their own. Even so... Just because they were early doesn't make them right.

3. Kelpha... If you really want me to respond to your posts... Have some respect. And do better with the facts! I am only responding cause BoL (for whatever reason) thought alot of your post. And before any of you go off on me referring to you Church as Babylonian... Hey... That's y'alls doing, not mine!



I will debate any Catholic with respect on doctrine or history if it is done hinestly and amicably. But I don't see that happening here.

​

The Babylonian Catholic Church​

Have some respect.​

​

​

​

​

 

[FHII]

1 Peter 5:12-13 KJV
By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. [13] The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you , saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.


Peter (the person you hijack as your first pope) called Rome "Babylon". This is the only Bible verse you have that even hints Peter was in Rome.

Your megachurch. Is in Rome.

Thus.... I'm only calling your church what Peter would've called it.