Peter and the early church

[Shaolen]

My Dad is making some claims regarding Peter, and the early church. Can someone help please.

"If you read the epistles in the New Testament, most written by Paul or Peter, you WILL see there was much diversity in beliefs among the various churches. That was the reason the epistles were written. To keep the churches from being diluted by outside influences. Peter did assume leadership of the Apostles and the church of Jersualem. About 44ad he turned over leadership of the church to James, the brother of Jesus and went on mission trips. Peter arrived in Rome at the earliest in 65-66ad and was cucified about Feb68ad. (much of this info was obtained from various Catholic websites) The early churches established in Rome were established by Paul (the apostle to the gentiles), therefore, if anyone should be the 1st ‘pope’ of the Roman church it would be Paul. Peter might be considered the 2nd after Paul’s death in Jan67ad. The Bible never says Peter ever was in Rome.

The Bible mentions the brother of Jesus in Galatians 1:19 “…James, the Lord’s brother.” (KJV). That’s just the one place I’ve found so far.

Follow-up to previous post: Question - How could the primacy of the Roman churches headed by Peter be acknowledged by the other churches when Peter didn’t have any establisted churches until after 65ad? They couldn’t.

You have brought up that the modern Baptist Church was started about 1609 by John Smyth. That is true. That is the MODERN Baptist church. Churches with our beliefs are traced back to the beginning. They used many differing names through out history. probably caused by different languages at different places.

One of the tenets of the Baptist faith is ‘Scriptures Only’. While the writings of people can be used as useful historical documents, they can not be used to change or modify what is scripture."

Please if anyone can help

 

[ahs]

My Dad is making some claims regarding Peter, and the early church. Can someone help please.

Sure.

"If you read the epistles in the New Testament…

Okay. The Epistles it is!

…you WILL see there was much diversity in beliefs among the various churches. That was the reason the epistles were written.

Actually, it’s abundantly clear that the reason they were written was because many of these folks, saved Christians who had received the grace of the Spirit, were committing sins, cutting themselves off from the grace they had received, and letting Judaisers convince them that they should go back to ritual circumcision in observance of the law. Reading the Epsitles, I see no evidence at all that they Christian communities had different Christian beliefs. The only “variation” was in the way they were sinning.

To keep the churches from being diluted by outside influences. Peter did assume leadership of the Apostles and the church of Jersualem. About 44ad he turned over leadership of the church to James, the brother of Jesus and went on mission trips.

That’s not in the Epistles.

Peter arrived in Rome at the earliest in 65-66ad and was cucified about Feb68ad. (much of this info was obtained from various Catholic websites) The early churches established in Rome were established by Paul (the apostle to the gentiles), therefore, if anyone should be the 1st ‘pope’ of the Roman church it would be Paul. Peter might be considered the 2nd after Paul’s death in Jan67ad.

None of that is in the Epistles, either.

The Bible never says Peter ever was in Rome.

Why does it need to?

The Bible mentions the brother of Jesus in Galatians 1:19 “…James, the Lord’s brother.” (KJV). That’s just the one place I’ve found so far.

Using only the Bible, please define “brothers” or “brother”. (You’ll find more than one use for the word. )

Follow-up to previous post: Question - How could the primacy of the Roman churches headed by Peter be acknowledged by the other churches when Peter didn’t have any establisted churches until after 65ad? They couldn’t.

What do you mean by “Peter didn’t have any established churches”? Peter’s office was established by Christ, prior to the Crucifixion (Mt 16) and re-affirmed after the Resurrection (John 21). The early Church understood this, so why would I try to see it otherwise centuries later?
daves-ahumbleservant.blogspot.com/2013/08/early-church-fathers-not-so-short.html

You have brought up that the modern Baptist Church was started about 1609 by John Smyth. That is true. That is the MODERN Baptist church. Churches with our beliefs are traced back to the beginning. They used many differing names through out history. probably caused by different languages at different places.

Baptist beliefs are traced back to the beginning? Please cite for me the first church to deny infants a Christian baptism. (The year, the person/group who wrote about it, and who objected to them.)

[Churches with our beliefs are traced back to the beginning.] One of the tenets of the Baptist faith is ‘Scriptures Only’.

Please cite the first occurrence of “Scriptures Only” or “Sola Scriptura”. All the sources I have looked at show this man-made tradition popping up in the 16th century.

While the writings of people can be used as useful historical documents, they can not be used to change or modify what is scripture."

Amen! So, how do we know which books are supposed to be in the Canon of Scripture, and which ones are not? Who decided this for us, when, and why do we believe them?

 

[jediliz]

Peter was the primary spokesman for the apostles, as is noted in the book Acts of the Apostles. He was the spokesman BEFORE Paul’s conversion. Jesus had NO brothers and sisters or saint John would have not been given the care of his (Jesus’s) MOTHER. There were two apostles named James - one was a son of Zebedee. The other was not a son of Joseph.

 

[mattp0625]

There was no such thing as a Protestant Church until the 16th century
Sola Scriptura did not exist until Martin Luther wrote it in the 16th century.
The earliest evidence of any Protestant doctrine is from John Wycliffe in the 14th cenutry.

The Baptist church was initiated by John Smyth and adopted many of the doctrines of Luther and/or Calvin, but modified the doctrines regarding baptism, age of reason, and the like.

There is not any direct connection between any Protestant church and first century Israel.
Yes, there were other beliefs in the early first century, but Protestant beliefs weren’t among them.

You can read the writings of any of the early church fathers beyond the apostles - Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons. There is lots that looks like the Catholic church including bishops, Eucharist, Virgin Mary, and the word Catholic. There is no evidence of Protestant or Baptist Churches. It’s impossible anyway due to the 1,500 year gap mentioned above.

The Roman Catholic church began when Jesus made Peter the rock of His church. There is a direct line of apostolic succession, as Peter appointed Linus and Clement, and so forth (whose names are in the bible).

1 Peter does mention that Peter was in Babylon with Mark. The ancient historian Tertullian, as well as the letters of Igantius and Irenaeus, also put Peter in Rome (and Antioch).

While Paul was in Rome, too, he did not receive the same authority from Christ that Peter did. He was also not one of the apostles.

I also noted that you quoted from the KJV…

The KJV is missing the seven books removed by Martin Luther in his Lutheran bible. This canon was adopted by all Protestants. The canon of the bible always included the seven books and were confirmed by the councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century.

You’ll note there is a 1,200 year gap there.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

There was no such thing as a Protestant Church until the 16th century
Sola Scriptura did not exist until Martin Luther wrote it in the 16th century.
The earliest evidence of any Protestant doctrine is from John Wycliffe in the 14th cenutry.

The Baptist church was initiated by John Smyth and adopted many of the doctrines of Luther and/or Calvin, but modified the doctrines regarding baptism, age of reason, and the like.

There is not any direct connection between any Protestant church and first century Israel.
Yes, there were other beliefs in the early first century, but Protestant beliefs weren’t among them.

You can read the writings of any of the early church fathers beyond the apostles - Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons. There is lots that looks like the Catholic church including bishops, Eucharist, Virgin Mary, and the word Catholic. There is no evidence of Protestant or Baptist Churches. It’s impossible anyway due to the 1,500 year gap mentioned above.

The Roman Catholic church began when Jesus made Peter the rock of His church. There is a direct line of apostolic succession, as Peter appointed Linus and Clement, and so forth (whose names are in the bible).

1 Peter does mention that Peter was in Babylon with Mark. The ancient historian Tertullian, as well as the letters of Igantius and Irenaeus, also put Peter in Rome (and Antioch).

While Paul was in Rome, too, he did not receive the same authority from Christ that Peter did. He was also not one of the apostles.

I also noted that you quoted from the KJV…

The KJV is missing the seven books removed by Martin Luther in his Lutheran bible. This canon was adopted by all Protestants. The canon of the bible always included the seven books and were confirmed by the councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century.

You’ll note there is a 1,200 year gap there.

There are versions of the KJV with the Apocrypha-Just to let you know. Though, as you stated, many Protestants do not include it in their Bibles.

 

[JohnGerard]

The early churches established in Rome were established by Paul (the apostle to the gentiles), therefore, if anyone should be the 1st ‘pope’ of the Roman church it would be Paul. Peter might be considered the 2nd after Paul’s death in Jan67ad. The Bible never says Peter ever was in Rome.

Unless I am mistaken, many people believe that in order to be the pope you have to physically be living in Rome. Peter wasn’t the Pope because he lived in Rome.

He was pope because he was handed the keys to the kingdom of heaven by Jesus (Matthew 16). It was here that he was told that he would be the albeyit (prime minister) of the Davidic Kingdom of which Jesus is the King for the rest of eternity. This gives Peter a unique office and a unique authority. (compare Matthew 16 with Isaiah 22).

The other apostles were also given the authority later on to bind and loose, as was Peter. *But only Peter was given the keys. *

It doesn’t matter if he lived in Rome or not. (We know from some of the writings of the church fathers that he did, though.) I think some people get confused about the different rites in the Catholic Church and they seem to think that the pope HAS to reside in Rome to be considered to be the pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

You have brought up that the modern Baptist Church was started about 1609 by John Smyth. That is true. That is the MODERN Baptist church. Churches with our beliefs are traced back to the beginning. They used many differing names through out history. probably caused by different languages at different places.

I’m a little foggy on it right now but I recall Patrick Madrid one time explaining that in order for the modern Baptists to trace their lineage back to the first century, they have to go through some very heretical groups such as the Waldensians, Albegensians, or Cathars or something. I’d have to look that stuff up, though, to be sure.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It is apparent if you compare Mt. 13:55 with Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40 and John 19:25, you will see that James and Joseph are the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas. Despite that, they are still called Jesus’ “brothers” in Mat. 13:55. They are not his fraternal brothers.

 

[Todd977]

The early churches established in Rome were established by Paul …

As I understand it, the existence of a Christian community at Rome long predates Paul’s letter to the Romans and his first visit to Rome, mentioned in Acts 28.

Romans was addressed to the Christian brethren at Rome, including Gentile converts, whose faith was already “heralded throughout the world.” (Romans 1:8) Paul indicates that he had postponed visiting Rome “for many years” because he didn’t want to “build on another man’s foundation,” i.e., “to preach the gospel … where Christ had already been named.” (Romans 15:20-23) In the last chapter of the epistle, Paul mentions by name many of his Christian acquaintances already living in Rome, including “Prisca and Aquila … also the church in their house.”

A few years later, when Paul approached Rome for the first time, the Christian “brethren there, when they heard of us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them Paul thanked God and took courage.” (Acts 28:15)

 

[mattp0625]

I’m a little foggy on it right now but I recall Patrick Madrid one time explaining that in order for the modern Baptists to trace their lineage back to the first century, they have to go through some very heretical groups such as the Waldensians, Albegensians, or Cathars or something. I’d have to look that stuff up, though, to be sure.

I did a little research. This looks like typical Protestant error. There are 30,000 Protestant denominations. Yet, they are all considered “one church” because they hold some things in common, even if they disagree on several doctrines. Under such a view, the “invisible church” is comprised of all believers who agree on “the essentials”. So, conflicting doctrine is OK in Christ’s Church.

The following is interesting to note:

James Edward McGoldrick, professor of history for Cedarville College in Ohio, a Baptist himself and expert especially in Protestant Reformation history, wrote a book refuting the “baptist successionism” thesis, held fully or believed implicitly by many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals today, most of whom have never checked any of the primary source documents but rely strictly on secondary sources and books by other anti-Catholic Fundamentalists.

The book by the Baptist historian McGoldrick that demolishes the above statements is titled Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (The American Theological Library Association and The Scarecrow Press, 1994). McGoldrick examines many groups claimed as “early Baptists” (or early Evangelicals who are “baptistic”) such as the Montanists, Novatians, Paulicians, Bogomils, Albigenses, Waldenses and other groups and individuals. None of these groups were in fact “early Evangelicals” but were either explicitly Catholic in doctrine or grossly heretical (such as the later Albigenses who denied the Incarnation). Baptists originate in the early 17th century in Holland and England.

“Although no reputable Church historians have ever affirmed the belief that Baptists can trace their lineage through medieval and ancient sects ultimately to the New Testament, that point of view enjoys a large following nevertheless. It appears that scholars aware of this claim have deemed it unworthy of their attention, which may account for the persistence and popularity of Baptist successionism as a doctrine as well as an interpretation of church history. Aside from occasional articles and booklets that reject this teaching, no one has published a refutation in a systematic, documented format. The present work is an effort to supply this need so that Baptists may have a thorough analysis of successionism, together with a reliable account of their origins as a Protestant religious body.” (McGoldrick, preface page iv)

**“It is the purpose of this book to show that, although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers.” **(ibid, page 2, emphasis mine)

 

[Shaolen]

Wonderful! I’ve responded to him with your insight and will update you guys with what he replies with. Stay tuned

 

[Shaolen]

So after I had replied with some of your insight and I mentioned how his Gal passage about James the brother of the lord is one of the apostles and that theres two apostle named James and neither had joseph as their dad so it must mean something else he replies with this.

"There was an apostle named James. If you are saying that the use of ‘brother’ in this instance meaning ‘the apostles’, the verse would have read to the effect ‘I did not see any of the apostle, except the apostle James’. Instead of this, it identifies the only person there as James the “Lord’s brother”. There are other references, I just don’t know where they are and haven’t really looked for them.

You do believe that writings outside of the Bible should be believed as ‘gospel’? Then do you believe the Book of Mormon? That is believed by many (the Mormons) to be equal to the New Testament. Or do you believe in outside writings only if it supports your beliefs.

Are you saying the particular beliefs did not exist until the currently used name started? i.e.: Baptist in 1600s, Anabaptist about the same time. The Anabaptist were made up of various groups going all the way back to the beginning. Their beliefs about baptism are what we’re looking at. The Church of Rome didn’t get a good grip on things until a Roman emperor accepted Christianity and, of course, as all roads lead to Rome, made sure the Roman church was supreme. This was in the 300s. The beginning of the Roman Catholic Church as it is now known."

Please if you guys can help that would be great

 

[mattp0625]

So after I had replied with some of your insight and I mentioned how his Gal passage about James the brother of the lord is one of the apostles and that theres two apostle named James and neither had joseph as their dad so it must mean something else he replies with this.

"There was an apostle named James. If you are saying that the use of ‘brother’ in this instance meaning ‘the apostles’, the verse would have read to the effect ‘I did not see any of the apostle, except the apostle James’. Instead of this, it identifies the only person there as James the “Lord’s brother”. There are other references, I just don’t know where they are and haven’t really looked for them.

You do believe that writings outside of the Bible should be believed as ‘gospel’? Then do you believe the Book of Mormon? That is believed by many (the Mormons) to be equal to the New Testament. Or do you believe in outside writings only if it supports your beliefs.

Are you saying the particular beliefs did not exist until the currently used name started? i.e.: Baptist in 1600s, Anabaptist about the same time. The Anabaptist were made up of various groups going all the way back to the beginning. Their beliefs about baptism are what we’re looking at. The Church of Rome didn’t get a good grip on things until a Roman emperor accepted Christianity and, of course, as all roads lead to Rome, made sure the Roman church was supreme. This was in the 300s. The beginning of the Roman Catholic Church as it is now known."

Please if you guys can help that would be great

Typical revisionist history and deflection.

What this baptist author stated that these various break-off groups, like the followers of Waldo, to some degree rejected the practices and authority of the Church like Martin Luther did, they were still very Catholic in doctrine and dogma. It’s not just about the name. Here is the source page:

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num3.htm

A Protestant cannot understand this under the “invisible church” theory. The invisible church creates the illusion of unity amid conflicting doctrine and 30,000 denominations.

Constantine made Christianity legal in Rome in the 3rd or 4th century. Those events have nothing to do with the origins of the Catholic Church, but that’s what Protestants will tell you. You may also ask where the bible says that Constantine started the church, and why it is OK to rely on history (instead of the bible) in some places but not others.

It’s very simple. Jesus gave authority to Peter. Peter chose Linus as his successor as Bishop of Rome. Then came Anacletus, Clement, etc. etc. This all happened before Constantine.

We do not equate the other letters to the Gospel. That’s a typical deflection. They are the writings of early church fathers that are looked at from a historical perspective. They clearly show the early Church was not Protestant. Ignatius of Antioch (first century in Antioch, where the first Christians fled from Jerusalem) wrote about the authority of bishops, the Eucharist, the word Catholic, and avoiding schismatics.

You may also ask him to show where the bible says you need to reach the age of reason in order to be baptized, and what age the bible says you need to reach. It doesn’t. Then again, the bible never says the bible alone is the sole authority in all matters faith. It says it’s profitable. Protestants take “profitable for ministry” to mean “sole authority”. It’s not there.

However, the bible does say the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. I don’t think Paul was referring to the followers of Waldo - who wasn’t around until the 12th century and still retained Catholic doctrine.

Lastly, if all who do the will of the Father are His brothers, that’s an awful lot of siblings. It’s just an attempt to deny the virginity of Mary and to contradict the Church.

 

[Abu]

Shaolen #1
My Dad is making some claims regarding Peter, and the early church. Can someone help please.

"If you read the epistles in the New Testament, most written by Paul or Peter, you WILL see there was much diversity in beliefs among the various churches. That was the reason the epistles were written. To keep the churches from being diluted by outside influences. Peter did assume leadership of the Apostles and the church of Jersualem. About 44ad he turned over leadership of the church to James, the brother of Jesus and went on mission trips. Peter arrived in Rome at the earliest in 65-66ad and was cucified about Feb68ad. (much of this info was obtained from various Catholic websites) The early churches established in Rome were established by Paul (the apostle to the gentiles), therefore, if anyone should be the 1st ‘pope’ of the Roman church it would be Paul. Peter might be considered the 2nd after Paul’s death in Jan67ad. The Bible never says Peter ever was in Rome.

1. First we listen to the Christ Himself – Peter did not “assume leadership” he was commanded by Christ to lead His Church.
   Jesus Himself mandated: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Jesus explicitly made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Thus we see that no one else had the authority of Christ’s chosen, Peter, to lead His Church.

1. As Dr Warren H Carroll in *A History of Christendom, The Foundation of Christendom *Vol 1, testifies, in The Pontificate of St Peter, 30-67:
   30-37 head of the Church in Jerusalem
   42-49 first sojourn in Rome
   49-50 in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council
   62-67 third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome
   67 martyrdom in Rome and burial at the Vatican
2. St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son, Mark.” All reputable scholars admit that the first Christians called pagan Rome Babylon on account of its vices. St. Peter, therefore, was writing from Rome.

It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome about the year 43 A.D., went back to Jerusalem after a few years for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. He died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., “Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom.” Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, “The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental evidence. [See “The Pope” in Vol 1]
*** Radio Replies | Catholic Apologetics Online | Rumble & Carthy***
radioreplies.info/site-se…+in+Rome+&db=1

Peter’s tomb has been found. It was found under the altar of St. Peters Basilica in Rome in 1965. The tomb is plainly marked with his name and there are human remains within it. Anyone who visits St. Peters can see the tomb for himself.

Tertullian, “The demurrer against the heretics”, chapter XXXII,1,
“…like the church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter.”

Eusebius, “History of the Church”, 2,14,6, 300 A.D., J651dd
“In the same reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious providence which watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one among the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman for all the others, to Rome."

Eusebius wrote in “The Chronicle” (Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the Church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained as Bishop of Rome for 25 years. We know from other early writings that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome in 67 A.D… That date, minus 25 years would put him in Rome in the year 42, during the reign of Claudius.

Who has the authority to ordain priests? Only Bishops do. Clement was ordained by the Bishop of Rome, Peter.
thecatholictreasurechest.com/petrom.htm

 

[steve_b]

My Dad is making some claims regarding Peter, and the early church. Can someone help please.

"If you read the epistles in the New Testament, most written by Paul or Peter, you WILL see there was much diversity in beliefs among the various churches. That was the reason the epistles were written. To keep the churches from being diluted by outside influences.

the purpose of an epistle is to

1. 
   *]teach one and same truth everywhere
   *]encourage what’s already going on in the Church
   *]if necessary, correct one’s behavior or thinking that is incorrect
   
   All the Epistles follow this style
   S:
   

   Peter did assume leadership of the Apostles and the church of Jersualem.

   Re: Peter,
   
   Jesus gave Peter his particular position. Peter didn’t assume it. There was even an argument over primacy of one, between the apostles and Jesus settled their argument
   
   Peter is the greatest among the apostles #153 , #275
   S:
   

   About 44ad he turned over leadership of the church to James, the brother of Jesus and went on mission trips.

   Different ways of answering “James brother of Jesus”
   
   Ossuary of James - I: Burial Box of St. James Found?
   
   Ossuary of James - II: Bad Aramaic Made Easy
   
   Bad Aramaic Made Easy
   
   Jesus had Brothers?
   
   Mary’s only child from her womb is Jesus.
   S:
   

   Peter arrived in Rome at the earliest in 65-66ad and was cucified about Feb68ad. (much of this info was obtained from various Catholic websites) The early churches established in Rome were established by Paul (the apostle to the gentiles), therefore, if anyone should be the 1st ‘pope’ of the Roman church it would be Paul. Peter might be considered the 2nd after Paul’s death in Jan67ad. The Bible never says Peter ever was in Rome.

   Any body reading Romans can see that Paul recognized the Church of Rome was already there. Romans 1:6-15 , and he would build up the “Gentiles” in faith, that are already there in the Church of Rome.
   
   Peter & Paul were in Rome and taught and built up the Church of Rome.
   
   Peter focused on the Jews, but NOT exclusively. After all he brought into the Church Cornelias and his family who were the 1st gentiles to come into the Church. Paul decided to focus on Gentiles.
   
   The question being asked is
   Was Peter in Rome?
   S:
   

   The Bible mentions the brother of Jesus in Galatians 1:19 “…James, the Lord’s brother.” (KJV). That’s just the one place I’ve found so far.

   See the previous entries
   S:
   

   Follow-up to previous post: Question - How could the primacy of the Roman churches headed by Peter be acknowledged by the other churches when Peter didn’t have any establisted churches until after 65ad? They couldn’t.

   I would just suggest,
   
   Hold your dad to the same scrutiny and demands for evidence, in giving his responses, as he holds the Catholic Church to, in giving the answers she gives.
   
   Just come right out and ask him for his sources. And require specifics peoperly referenced. It’s the old saying, he’s entitled to his own opinions all day long, but not to his own unsubstantiated facts.
   S:
   

   You have brought up that the modern Baptist Church was started about 1609 by John Smyth. That is true. That is the MODERN Baptist church.

   His lack of selectivity in what he chooses to believe or not believe, is stunning.
   
   Obviously he needs to be challenged with very direct questions in return… Did you challenge him on that statement?
   
   BTW the “Trail of Blood” is a complete fabrication of Baptists history
   
   catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/TrailOfBlood.pdf
   S:
   

   Churches with our beliefs are traced back to the beginning. They used many differing names through out history. probably caused by different languages at different places.

   Have him prove EVERYTHING he says. Don’t just take what he says for gospel.
   S:
   

   One of the tenets of the Baptist faith is ‘Scriptures Only’. While the writings of people can be used as useful historical documents, they can not be used to change or modify what is scripture."
   
   Please if anyone can help

   Since he believes in scripture alone, have him show you FROM SCRIPTURE, where scripture specifically says of itself “by scripture alone”
   
   As an aside, 2 JW’s came to the door yesterday. They had all kinds of things they wanted to talk about. I in turn asked them very specific questions about the bible they were were going to use to support their positions. They couldn’t answer correctly a single question I asked.

 

[Abu]

Shaolen #1
One of the tenets of the Baptist faith is ‘Scriptures Only’. While the writings of people can be used as useful historical documents, they can not be used to change or modify what is scripture."

As there were no “Scriptures” readily available for many for over 1000 years until the printing press, the above feeling is completely false. Jesus did not write a book – He founded His Catholic Church and that Church produced the Sacred Scriptures as part of Her teaching. Of course no one may falsify the Scriptures.

See: catholicbridge.com/catholic/d…le_reading.php
This section was researched by Art Sippo, Fr. Terry Donahue, CC and Mark Bonocore.
“The Bible was on scrolls and parchments during the early centuries of Christianity. No one had a “Bible”. Even into the Middle Ages, each Bible was written by hand. Most people were, at best, only functionally literate. That is partially why they used stained glass windows and art to tell the Bible story. The printing press was not invented until 1436 by Johann Gutenberg. Note: The Gutenberg Bible, like every Bible before it, contained the Deuterocanonical books - the “extra” books as they are called in Evangelical circles.

“So prior to 1436, the idea of everybody having a Bible was out of the question, even if they could read. Yeah, I know it’s hard to imagine a world without photocopiers, printing presses, email and websites…

“After the invention of the printing press, prior to Luther’s Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes (vernacular means native to a region or country).

“The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610."

 

[steve_b]

There are versions of the KJV with the Apocrypha-Just to let you know. Though, as you stated, many Protestants do not include it in their Bibles.

#48 I was responding to JonNC.

The link he gave in his post ( kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/ )shows WHEN the KJV finally went the way of all other Protestant bibles, and eliminated the apocrypha. Assuming it’s correct, That link shows the apocrypha hasn’t been in the KJV version for over 130 years.

 

[Todd977]

The Church of Rome didn’t get a good grip on things until a Roman emperor accepted Christianity and, of course, as all roads lead to Rome, made sure the Roman church was supreme. This was in the 300s. The beginning of the Roman Catholic Church as it is now known."

As mentioned earlier, in his letter to the Romans, years before he would ever visit them, that their faith was already “heralded throughout the world” and that visiting them he hoped that both he and them “may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith.” (Romans 1:8,12) Sounds to me like the Church of Rome already had a good grip on the Christian faith even in apostolic times.

If it was the Roman emperor who made the Roman Church supreme in the 300s, how is it that even in the 100s St Irenaeus said of the Roman Church, “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority” ( book 3, chapter 3Against Heresies,)? Seems to me that the Roman emperor in the 300s if anything merely confirmed the supremacy of the Roman Church that had already existed for hundreds of years.

 

[Todd977]

As mentioned earlier, in his letter to the Romans, years before he would ever visit them, that their faith was already “heralded throughout the world” and that visiting them he hoped that both he and them “may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith.” (Romans 1:8,12)

Oops! I seem to have forgotten a subject and a verb in my sentence. Sorry about that. What I meant to say was: As mentioned earlier, in his letter to the Romans, years before he would ever visit them, St Paul said that their faith was already “heralded throughout the world” and that visiting them he hoped that both he and they “may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith.” (Romans 1:8,12)

 

[Shaolen]

Ok so I’m going to need some help with this. I responded with a longer reply but followed up with a simple request saying

"1) what early Christian writing shows the early church taught scripture alone (sola scriptura)

1. what early Christian writing shows that the early church denied baptism to infants
2. what early Christian writing taught that the Eucharist was just a symbol.
3. how do we know which books are supposed to be in the Canon of Scripture, and which ones are not? Who decided this for us, when, and why do we believe them?

This would be a starting point for a discussion. Otherwise history shows the early church knew nothing of about Protestantism and these novel doctrines."

My Dad has largely ignored this and stated this

“you’ve mention the Montanist earlier. By having acknowledged their existence, you have made my point that not all non-Catholic churches are protestant.” (I don’t recall him making such a point)

“I take it that you believe in infant baptism, a Catholic belief. What happens when an infant-baptised child grows up and becomes an Adolph Hitler, John Dillinger, or other evil mass-murderer. Does the decision made by his parents to have him baptised as a baby save him from hell?”

“I don’t believe in cannibalism, do you? The eating of human flesh is wrong. But, if you believe in transubstantiation, you do. If the bread and wine actually become the actual body and blood of Jesus, then you are eating the flesh of a human and drinking his blood.”

I’d like to give him a good response to these but after that point him back to the questions I gave him that he ignored. Any help on these issues would be much appreciated

 

[steve_b]

Ok so I’m going to need some help with this. I responded with a longer reply but followed up with a simple request saying

"1) what early Christian writing shows the early church taught scripture alone (sola scriptura)

Re: your dad,

He won’t care what the Early Church taught. He wants bible alone or nothing…right? Problem is, for his view, is that the bible (all the canon, 73 books) didn’t officially exist (as canon) till 380 a.d. So for almost 400 years there was no official “bible”. Therefore, your dad needs to find in those 73 books, and no where else, that the bible alone teaches scripture alone… right?

So he is the one who needs to prove his point using scripture alone.

BTW, the Church was here before the NT was written. The Church wrote the NT
S:

1. what early Christian writing shows that the early church denied baptism to infants

Scripture shows that children were baptized.
Infant Baptism
Early Teachings on Infant Baptism
S:

1. what early Christian writing taught that the Eucharist was just a symbol.

Writings don’t get written to prove a negative…i.e. the Eucharist is not what it is. They are written to show it is what Jesus says it is.

Christ in the Eucharist
S:

1. how do we know which books are supposed to be in the Canon of Scripture, and which ones are not? Who decided this for us, when, and why do we believe them?

Great question. What’s your dad say about THAT?
S:

This would be a starting point for a discussion. Otherwise history shows the early church knew nothing of about Protestantism and these novel doctrines."

People from the very beginning were going off the rails. That’s why Jesus instituted His Church #34, it’s why the Gospels and epistles were written, and all the writings of the ECF’s, and the calling of all councils, local and ecumenical, etc
S:

My Dad has largely ignored this and stated this

“you’ve mention the Montanist earlier. By having acknowledged their existence, you have made my point that not all non-Catholic churches are protestant.” (I don’t recall him making such a point)

like all the Great Heresies in history

Protestantism is its own unique heresy.

Protestantism
S:

“I take it that you believe in infant baptism, a Catholic belief. What happens when an infant-baptised child grows up and becomes an Adolph Hitler, John Dillinger, or other evil mass-murderer. Does the decision made by his parents to have him baptised as a baby save him from hell?”

If one dies in mortal sin they go to hell, baptized or not.
S:

“I don’t believe in cannibalism, do you? The eating of human flesh is wrong. But, if you believe in transubstantiation, you do. If the bread and wine actually become the actual body and blood of Jesus, then you are eating the flesh of a human and drinking his blood.”

What Catholics Believe about John 6