B
- Status
B
BrianH
Guest
F
Fidelis
Guest
Fidelis;1924371:
Internal evidence (for example, itās apparent Aramaic underpinnings) and the witness of the ECF, as the article I provided indicates.
So ā what say you of St. Cyprian? Does that satisfy your rather arbitrary criteria?
B
BrianH
Guest
BrianH;1924654:
Aramaic underpinnings? Is there a reason specifically that one feels like āaramaic underpinningsā make something 50 AD as opposed to 90 AD?Internal evidence (for example, itās apparent Aramaic underpinnings) and the witness of the ECF, as the article I provided indicates.
So ā what say you of St. Cyprian? Does that satisfy your rather arbitrary criteria?
Do you think Matthew used Mark?
As far as Cyprian, no doubt he believed that the early church was led by Peter. 200 years later, he was wrong.
I am actually looking for more quotes about James, I know there are plenty about Peter 200 years after the fact.
E
exoflare
Guest
So if you claim they saw fit that the Church should have a leader back then (whoever it may beā¦ of course as stated earlier, in the Protestant view it MUST be anyone but Peter 
) why shouldnāt it have a leader today??
) why shouldnāt it have a leader today??
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
So in essence, you are saying that you believe that James was the head of the Church and you are looking ofr quotes to support this.
Rather than takeing what evidence we have, and yes St Cyprian is part of this evidence, to form a belief you chose to pick a belief and then hunt for evidence to support it.
Yes, St Cyprian may have lived 200 years later but what makes you think that you, living almost 2000 years after, are going to get it ārightā when someone who lived much closer to the time and had much more contact and evidence than we have today could?
P
Pax
Guest
Brian,
If you want a non-biased view, simply read secular historical chronologies. They overwhelmingly support the fact that Peter was the head of the early Church.
If you want a non-biased view, simply read secular historical chronologies. They overwhelmingly support the fact that Peter was the head of the early Church.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Jerusalem Council Acts 15, yep James was in charge in Jerusalem, but he was not in charge in Rome.
Simple view, each city had a church, each church had bishops, when there is a group, someone must be the leader, so the church in every city had a leading bishop. James in Jeruslem, Peter and Paul in Rome, and so onā¦
Simple view, each city had a church, each church had bishops, when there is a group, someone must be the leader, so the church in every city had a leading bishop. James in Jeruslem, Peter and Paul in Rome, and so onā¦
B
BrianH
Guest
I do not see evidence of this in Paul, the ECFās for the first two hundred years, 1st or 2nd Peter, James, Mark, Luke, etc. I do see it in Matthew 16, possibly. Anyway, back to our topic. Thanks for the free analysis of my motives
M
MrS
Guest
and there is moreā¦
Each of those churches (today a diocese) did have a bishop who was responsible for itā¦ and they were a part of the Church ONLY if they were in union with the first among equalsā¦ Peter and his successors.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Hmmm,I do not see evidence of this in Paul, the ECFās for the first two hundred years, 1st or 2nd Peter, James, Mark, Luke, etc. I do see it in Matthew 16, possibly. Anyway, back to our topic. Thanks for the free analysis of my motives
Well, there is no evidence of James being the leader in Paul, the ECFās for the first 200 yuears, or anywhere else.
That is except for private interpretations of the scripture.
Which I am sure you are aware that Catholics do not accept.
B
BrianH
Guest
Would you address the specific quotes from post one.
B
BrianH
Guest
Very Orthodox view Daniel
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Only the first four are Scripture and they do not say what you want them to say. In no way do they say that James is the head of the Church.
You seem to ignore Matthew where Jesus states that Peter is the rock that He will build His Church on.
Of the other quotes. The Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic work and in no way inspired and I have not heard of the other work you are using.
By the way, it is the use of these two, particularly the gnostic work to support your argument that brings to mind the idea that you are just hunting for quotes to support your belief rather than using the works to find the Truth. Afterall no mainstream Christian body recognizes the gnostic Gospels. Especially the Catholic Church who created the canon of the Bible in the first place.
I wonder why you would even bring this up on a Catholic forum.
B
BrianH
Guest
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Eusebius is not infallible. And certainly private interpretation of the works of Eusebius is as liable to error as private interpretation of any work of any ECF, any private interpretation of Scripture, or any private interpretation of any Christian teaching. . .
And for heavens sake, TV guide can offer commentary that has āsimilarity to the gospels.ā Doesnāt mean that I believe in the gospel of TV guide or would recommend that TV guide be put on the same footing, or even as a reference, to Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Certainly not someoneās private interpretation of TV guide. . .
And for heavens sake, TV guide can offer commentary that has āsimilarity to the gospels.ā Doesnāt mean that I believe in the gospel of TV guide or would recommend that TV guide be put on the same footing, or even as a reference, to Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Certainly not someoneās private interpretation of TV guide. . .
F
Fidelis
Guest
Actually your question was as follows:
And now that someone has provided it, you say thatās not what you were looking for. It is clear that what you are really only looking for are quotes that support your own predjudices. Sorry for not rolling over.
Let me give you some friendly advice. At least have the humility to admit that what you thought wasnāt there, obviously is. That is, if you value your credibility. Otherwise you will gain a reputation as a crank, and no one will take anything you have to say seriously.
C
Caesar
Guest
I believe St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, so whoever is Patriarch of Jerusalem today would be his successor.
Even so, he was still subject to St. Peter.
Even so, he was still subject to St. Peter.
B
BrianH
Guest
Cyprian is not from the first two centuries, he is is third century, please go back and read what I said.
I am not OVERLY concerned about my reputation on an internet discussion forum, for all anyone knows I could REALLY be a 60 year old Seventh Day Adventist named Janetā¦
F
Fidelis
Guest
You said āfrom the first two centuries.ā Two-hundred twenty years after the death of Jesus is right there. Now, it is before the āthird century.ā
Oh wellā¦ ā¦suit yourself.
- Status