Bishop of Rome?

[BrianH]

Eileen T:

NPS :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Well done.

REally…you applaud a plagarizer that uses discredited sources?
BH

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Brian H: YOUR source “discredits” the Ignatius sources (and I quote from what you pasted, "WE take the position that all the letters are forgeries’0

I do not believe that New Advent takes that belief. In fact, regarding the seven genuine letters, it says,

While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr’s death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or forged. When, furthermore, we take into consideration the passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxviii, 4) found in the original Greek in Eusebius (Hist. eccI., III, xxxvi), in which he refers to the letter to the Romans. (iv, I) in the following words: “Just as one of our brethren said, condemned to the wild beasts in martyrdom for his faith”, the evidence of authenticity becomes compelling. The romance of Lucian of Samosata, “De morte peregrini”, written in 167, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Harnack, who was not always so minded, describes these proofs as “testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of” (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).

 

[NPS]

BrianH:

NPS
This discussion has taken an interesting turn. you liberally cut and pasted from sources without citing them. Liberally. Which is
disgusting .

Sorry!!! Wrong!!! I cut and pasted a previous response on this same topic from myself and edited it down to fit here.
I can link to it if you want me to. But I’d like to put a five-dollar bet on it first.

Thanks for the invective, though. That’s always helpful.

 

[NPS]

Sorry Brian, you’ll have to do more than say “The letters of Ignatius are forgeries” :nope:

Care to directly answer any of the points in my “disgusting” post(s)?

While you’re at it, come clean about this “Peter’s Third Job” business. Is this the new thing they teach the haters to say about Peter to rile Catholics?
:clapping:

 

[vern_humphrey]

BrianH:

You do agree this verse in an example of how the key was taken away?
BH

This is where the key was given;

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Now you quote the verse in which it was taken away.

 

[NotWorthy]

BrianH:

You do agree this verse in an example of how the key was taken away?
BH

Well, or course. The Key was taken away from Israel when it was conquered (North) by the Assyrians, and (South) by the Babylonians, JUST AS PROPHECIED.

The Key given to Peter was never prophecied to be taken away, now was it?

Notworthy

 

[vern_humphrey]

NotWorthy:

Well, or course. The Key was taken away from Israel when it was conquered (North) by the Assyrians, and (South) by the Babylonians, JUST AS PROPHECIED.

The Key given to Peter was never prophecied to be taken away, now was it?

Notworthy

The prophesy came to pass more than 500 years before Christ gave the Keys to Peter.

To say this invalidates Christ’s action is mind-boggling.

 

[Redbandito]

BrianH:

Notworthy

They appealed to Paul…who was not a Pope.
Clement undoubtedly carried a great deal of weight…as he should…I find him to be an extraordinary individual from his writing…
Why would MOST of the churches read Paul…or James…or the Book of Hebrews…I think it carried a great deal of weight…never said it did not…people need to read what I am saying and not their own biases, no offence…its not just you…Clement appeals to scripture, Christ, and “BISHOPS”…

So what are you arguing then Brian? This loses the argument for you. They appeal to Paul, who rights back INSPIRED SCRIPTURE. If you are trying to correlate their appeal to Paul and his inspired response, then you must also recognize that when appealing to Clement they were looking for an inspired response. This is the only way your argument logically follows, and it just so happens to prove my point. Otherwise, you must be saying that every Bishop possesses inspiration over faith and morals. This is dangerous ground my friend. If you’re going there, proceed with caution. Thanks and God bless!

 

[Redbandito]

Brian, I am curious as to how you plan to explain Peter’s apparent granting of his papal authority to Antioch while he was still very much alive and establishing the Church elsewhere. Are you saying that there were two valid “Cephas” at once? I’m not following what it is you are saying. The only thing I have been able to figure out from your argument is that you do not want to concede the Primacy of Rome. I have yet to see a very good argument as to why though. Could you help me out?

 

[BrianH]

NPS:

Sorry!!! Wrong!!! I cut and pasted a previous response on this same topic from myself and edited it down to fit here.
I can link to it if you want me to. But I’d like to put a five-dollar bet on it first.

Thanks for the invective, though. That’s always helpful.

Yes, I do want the link to see if you properly cite your sources.
Please.
BH

 

[BrianH]

vern humphrey:

This is where the key was given;

Now you quote the verse in which it was taken away.

I am not contending the key was taken away from Peter, I am contending that the verses everyone has used so from the Hebrew Bible so far reflect when the key WAS taken away.
Where is the key given to the Bishop of Rome??? How do you differintiate between Peters successor at Antioch and Paul and Peters successors at Rome? Did the Apostles alive at the time recognize the authority of Linus over them because of his position as Peters successor? Lets get started there.
BH

 

[BrianH]

Redbandito:

Brian, I am curious as to how you plan to explain Peter’s apparent granting of his papal authority to Antioch while he was still very much alive and establishing the Church elsewhere. Are you saying that there were two valid “Cephas” at once? I’m not following what it is you are saying. The only thing I have been able to figure out from your argument is that you do not want to concede the Primacy of Rome. I have yet to see a very good argument as to why though. Could you help me out?

That is fair Red, I am giving you the burden of proof, when I post my hypothesis, the burden of proof will be on me. Because it is the most important claim, I would expect evidence that the Bishop of Rome has the key…wouldnt you think?
BH

 

[BrianH]

Redbandito:

So what are you arguing then Brian? This loses the argument for you. They appeal to Paul, who rights back INSPIRED SCRIPTURE. If you are trying to correlate their appeal to Paul and his inspired response, then you must also recognize that when appealing to Clement they were looking for an inspired response. This is the only way your argument logically follows, and it just so happens to prove my point. Otherwise, you must be saying that every Bishop possesses inspiration over faith and morals. This is dangerous ground my friend. If you’re going there, proceed with caution. Thanks and God bless!

Paul answers other churches and his reply is not inspired…you do agree? Are all responses to churches inspired? Is that really what you are contending?
BH

 

[BrianH]

NotWorthy:

Well, or course. The Key was taken away from Israel when it was conquered (North) by the Assyrians, and (South) by the Babylonians, JUST AS PROPHECIED.

The Key given to Peter was never prophecied to be taken away, now was it?

Notworthy

I have yet to have anyone clearly show me the key was prophecied.
BH

 

[vern_humphrey]

BrianH:

I am not contending the key was taken away from Peter, I am contending that the verses everyone has used so from the Hebrew Bible so far reflect when the key WAS taken away.
Where is the key given to the Bishop of Rome??? How do you differintiate between Peters successor at Antioch and Paul and Peters successors at Rome? Did the Apostles alive at the time recognize the authority of Linus over them because of his position as Peters successor? Lets get started there.
BH

Let’s take it slowly:

1. Christ gave the keys to Peter.
2. Peter, so that Christ’s Church should not perish, passed the keys on to his successor.
3. That successor happened to succeed to the Bishophric of Rome – where Peter died.
4. That successor, and all his subsequent successors held the keys so that Christ’s Church should not perish.
5. For two thousand years, Peter’s successors have taught a consistent message.
6. In less than a quarter of that time, those who claimed authority but did not have Peter’s authority have squabbled, split, fragmented and re-split into thousands of denomination.

 

[vern_humphrey]

BrianH:

I am not contending the key was taken away from Peter, I am contending that the verses everyone has used so from the Hebrew Bible so far reflect when the key WAS taken away.

And hence was in the possession of God, who in fulfilment of the Scriptures sent His Son, who bestowed them on Peter.

BrianH:

Where is the key given to the Bishop of Rome???

The keys were given to Peter, who, so Christ’s Church should not perish, passed them to his successor – who was the Bishop of Rome.

BrianH:

How do you differintiate between Peters successor at Antioch and Paul and Peters successors at Rome?

It isn’t up to me to differentiate – Peter did that.

BrianH:

Did the Apostles alive at the time recognize the authority of Linus over them because of his position as Peters successor? Lets get started there.
BH

Yes – which is why the Corinthians went to Clement, and not to John, who was still alive at the time (and living right down the road.)

 

[BrianH]

vern humphrey:

Let’s take it slowly:

1. Christ gave the keys to Peter.

y…e…s…slowly get it

1. Peter, so that Christ’s Church should not perish, passed the keys on to his successor.

Whoa…
leap of faith…where does it say he is going to keep passing that key?

1. That successor happened to succeed to the Bishophric of Rome – where Peter died.

So…because he died…the second person who had his third job has the key…interesting, some support please

1. That successor, and all his subsequent successors held the keys so that Christ’s Church should not perish.

ok

1. For two thousand years, Peter’s successors have taught a consistent message.

ok that is another thread

1. In less than a quarter of that time, those who claimed authority but did not have Peter’s authority have squabbled, split, fragmented and re-split into thousands of denomination.

The orthodox church?? Oh…you are talking about 1500 years later…oh…I thought you were talking about the OTHER churches set up by the other apostles…sorry about that

BH

 

[BrianH]

It isn’t up to me to differentiate – Peter did that.

when…how do you know ?

Yes – which is why the Corinthians went to Clement, and not to John, who was still alive at the time (and living right down the road.)

If you can prove that 1st Clement is written on an exact date…and if you can prove when John died exactly…you would have something…but even then…you would have to ask yourself…IF John was alive…if…do we know that John in his late years would have been in any shape to respond. My 84 year old grandmother was once a very informed person…I would not ask her advice on anything. You also have no way of proving…or disproving who EVERYONE they asked for help was? I see your point but it would be contingent on John being proven alive, not senile, and not have been asked…see what I mean?

 

[vern_humphrey]

BrianH:

leap of faith…where does it say he is going to keep passing that key?

He (Peter) doesn’t – the successors of Peter do.

BrianH:

So…because he died…the second person who had his third job has the key…interesting, some support please

Just gave it to you, me lad.

BrianH:

leap ok that is another thread

You’d like it to be, but it’s the same thread – because it shows conclusively what happens when someone without the keys trys to teach.

BrianH:

leap The orthodox church?? Oh…you are talking about 1500 years later…oh…I thought you were talking about the OTHER churches set up by the other apostles…sorry about that

BH

When you play the fool, there is a great danger some people will think you’re not playing.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[vern_humphrey]

BrianH:

when…

Before he was put to death.

BrianH:

how do you know ?

By the fact that his successors exercised the powers of the keys and their contemporaries acknowledged them.

BrianH:

If you can prove that 1st Clement is written on an exact date…and if you can prove when John died exactly…you would have something…but even then…you would have to ask yourself…IF John was alive…if…do we know that John in his late years would have been in any shape to respond. My 84 year old grandmother was once a very informed person…I would not ask her advice on anything. You also have no way of proving…or disproving who EVERYONE they asked for help was? I see your point but it would be contingent on John being proven alive, not senile, and not have been asked…see what I mean?

Give it a rest – your’e reduced to picking fly specks out of the pepper and that’s a losing game.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif