Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[onemangang]

Isaiah,

My church claims a lineage from the apostles no less direct than yours. History teaches that Peter was never a bishop of Rome and even Catholic scholars are redefining the meaning of apostolic succession in the light of this. All pastors and bishops who take on the tasks of the apostles are successors of the apostles.

My church as councils to guide us and of course we are under the Holy Spirit.

Peace, JohnR

That was a very bold statement you have made about Peter never being a Bishop of Rome, care to provide a source?

Hypothetically, let’s say St.Peter was not Bishop of Rome, was he ever a Bishop over the Church, or a region of the Church?

How do Pastors and Bishops take on the task of the Apostles to become successors of the Apostles?

How does the bible say that task was handed down?

 

[Nicea325]

Isaiah,

My church claims a lineage from the apostles no less direct than yours. History teaches that Peter was never a bishop of Rome and even Catholic scholars are redefining the meaning of apostolic succession in the light of this. All pastors and bishops who take on the tasks of the apostles are successors of the apostles.

My church as councils to guide us and of course we are under the Holy Spirit.

Peace, JohnR

History teaches Peter was never a bishop of rome? What history? Whose history? What liberal Catholic scholars? You mean more like re-defining history in order to cater to a revisionist view of history just to make a few happy?

I would like to read these sources of yours. These sources would have stem from the early church; hence meaning everything we have as primary sources such men as Polycarp,Ignatius,Ambrose,etc,etc throughout the ages were all a bunch of liars and fabricators of history.

 

[pablope]

suzy,

There are numerous history books that can help you out on this.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:highrigger1

in fact the history books teach that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

In “fact” history books teach Peter was never in Rome? Yeah…if those books were written and published by anti-Catholics. Are you you kidding? What history are you reading?

I’ll give you an example of biased history books. I always remember as a grade school child we were taught Jamestown, VA was the oldest town/city in the U.S. Is it accurate? Nope! St. Augustine, FL dates to 1565. I wonder why it was never given its proper due? Perhaps because those who wrote history and published it in this country were biased against Spain and the fact it was Catholic?

Time to be objective with your sources and not subjective.

 

[highrigger1]

High,

I recall the movie working girl. In that movie is a scene where one girl says to the other…“just because you sing in the shower doesn’t make you Madonna”…

Mohammed claims to be a Prophet
Joseph Smith claims to be a Prophet

Does claiming something make it true? John Wesley was an Anglican and he departed from the Anglicans. The Anglicans departed from ???

If what you say is true then John Wesley should have started “The Church Of Apostolic Succession of all Christians”…but he did not.

Hi Coptic,

No need for sarcasm but agree that claiming something does not make it true. Does that not apply equally to the Catholic church?

My point is you have no more direct connection to the apostles than my church.
Wesley needs not start any succession any more than the Pope because the old timey definition of apostolic succession applies to neither. This is what historians are telling me anyway. Even Catholic scholars say the old definitions no longer apply. Here is what Raymond Brown says about it.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur

So it appears here that he is saying the Catholic church has no direct connection at all that can be demonstrated from history.
So the pastors and bishops of my church are successors no less than yours since they
have taken on the tasks of the apostles. Right?

Instead of sarcasm perhaps you might provide real history to support your views?
So far I see none.

Peace, JohnR

 

[pablope]

Isaiah,

My church claims a lineage from the apostles no less direct than yours. History teaches that Peter was never a bishop of Rome and even Catholic scholars are redefining the meaning of apostolic succession in the light of this.
My church as councils to guide us and of course we are under the Holy Spirit.

Peace, JohnR

As less direct than the Catholic church’s? Where do you get this idea?

Can you produce a list like this…newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.
1.St. Peter (32-67)
2.St. Linus (67-76)
3.St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4.St. Clement I (88-97)
5.St. Evaristus (97-105)
6.St. Alexander I (105-115…

262.Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
263.Paul VI (1963-78)
264.John Paul I (1978)
265.John Paul II (1978-2005)
266.Benedict XVI

And attested to by Ireneus…newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric
   .

All pastors and bishops who take on the tasks of the apostles are successors of the apostles.

This is another protestant innovation…didn’t the Reformers deny or did not see the necessity of apostolic succession…and now you are claiming this?

Let me cite the example of St. Paul for you…

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

This is as per this passage…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood

Let me ask you then…by which authority stemming from the Apostolic lineage did the founder of Methodists submit himself, following the example of St. Paul?

Can you be absolutely sure, following the exhortation of 1John4?

Now look at Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

Before Paul and Barnabas went on their first missionary journey, he submits himself to Church authority and are ordained by laying of hands.

Let me ask you another question…who sent the methodist founder to preach? Can you trace his apostolic lineage? Did he follow the example of St. Paul? Submitting to an apostle…and being ordained before being sent?

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Coptic,

No need for sarcasm but agree that claiming something does not make it true. Does that not apply equally to the Catholic church?

My point is you have no more direct connection to the apostles than my church.
Wesley needs not start any succession any more than the Pope because the old timey definition of apostolic succession applies to neither. This is what historians are telling me anyway. Even Catholic scholars say the old definitions no longer apply. Here is what Raymond Brown says about it.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur

So it appears here that he is saying the Catholic church has no direct connection at all that can be demonstrated from history.
So the pastors and bishops of my church are successors no less than yours since they
have taken on the tasks of the apostles. Right?

Instead of sarcasm perhaps you might provide real history to support your views?
So far I see none.

Peace, JohnR

John,

I like Raymond Brown. I am not a fan of the Catholic Encyclopedia or any Encylopedia however here it is concise for the topic.

newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

This chain of documentary evidence, having its first link in Scripture itself, and broken nowhere, puts the sojourn of St. Peter in Rome among the best-ascertained facts in history. It is further strengthened by a similar chain of monumental evidence, which Lanciani, the prince of Roman topographers, sums up as follows: “For the archaeologist the presence and execution of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome are facts established beyond a shadow of doubt, by purely monumental evidence!” (Pagan and Christian Rome, 123).

The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter’s Chair and Peter’s office of continuing the work of Christ [Duchesne, “The Roman Church before Constantine”, Catholic Univ. Bulletin (October, 1904) X, 429-450]. To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors.

 

[highrigger1]

That was a very bold statement you have made about Peter never being a Bishop of Rome, care to provide a source?

Hypothetically, let’s say St.Peter was not Bishop of Rome, was he ever a Bishop over the Church, or a region of the Church?

How do Pastors and Bishops take on the task of the Apostles to become successors of the Apostles?

How does the bible say that task was handed down?

onemangang,

Yes here is Gary Wills a Catholic historian. He is not the only one who tells this history.

Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.

“The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be
handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no
successor. The idea that there is an “apostolic succession”
to Peter’s fictional episcopacy did not arise for several
centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively
called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even
so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes.”

Regarding how a pastor decided to take on the tasks of the apostles is he just decided to.
Some were appointed by apostles but beyond that we have no idea.
There no historical evidence otherwise. Not until the third century was there any formal ordination by any church as far as we know.

So you are talking about a gap of over 150 years. The bishops after that might connect themselves to bishops that follow but not before. The fact that one has a 150 year gap or a 1500 year gap makes no difference it seems to me. No direct connection means no direct connection. Period.

The earlier poster said a claim is only that - a claim. I agree. Do you have more than a claim? I have not seen it and neither have the historians.

Peace, JohnR

 

[pablope]

onemangang,

There no historical evidence otherwise. Not until the third century was there any formal ordination by any church as far as we know.

 

[highrigger1]

History teaches Peter was never a bishop of rome? What history? Whose history? What liberal Catholic scholars? You mean more like re-defining history in order to cater to a revisionist view of history just to make a few happy?

I would like to read these sources of yours. These sources would have stem from the early church; hence meaning everything we have as primary sources such men as Polycarp,Ignatius,Ambrose,etc,etc throughout the ages were all a bunch of liars and fabricators of history.

Nicea,

Is Raymond E. Brown a revisionist. Are all the other historians?

^ Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P. (1983). Antioch and Rome: New
Testament Cradles of Christianity. Paulist Press. p. 98. “As for
Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what
he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the
original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and
therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense).
There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local
ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church–a claim not made till
the third century. Most likely he did not spend any majortime at Rome
before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been
only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that
Peter came to the capital.”

The people you meantion are not primary sources. Neither Polycarp nor Ignatius said Peter was a bishop of Rome. You need to relearn your history if you think that.
Ambrose thought so because that is what they taught in that time period. Of course Ambrose never thought the Bishop of Rome had any more authority than himself.

None of them were liars but Ambrose was mistaken. He believed the mytholodgy invented in the third century.

I can give more internationally known scholars of this subject if you want.
I think the protestants know more history than you realize. We read the Catholic experts.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

=pablope;9213781]As less direct than the Catholic church’s? Where do you get this idea?

Can you produce a list like this…newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

pablope,

Yes I could and just as valid since that list you mention is fabricated. Do you want to know what historians say about it. Here is an example.

Andrew Louth, translator of Esubius’ History of the Church
in his introduction P xxii regarding the bishop list for the Roman Church.

“The problem for the first century or so is what it is a list of: for evidence
that there was a single bishop leading the Roman Church is lacking for that
period; indeed what evidence there is suggests a rather different picture.
When Clement wrote to the Corinthian Church, he wrote not as a bishop in the
later sense but as one of the presbyters of the Roman Church entrusted with
the task of writing on behalf of the whole Roman Church to the erring Church
of Corinth, similarly, Ignatius writing perhaps a decade later to the Roman
Church, does not seem to envisage a ‘bishop of Rome’, despite his enthusiasm
for monepiscopacy.”

“The other odd thing about Eusebius’ use of the succession list for Rome is more
venial; that for the last half of the third century he has clearly misread it,
reading years for months and months for years, so that, overlooking the
martydom of Xystus II, he has him reigning for another ten years, which upsests
the chronology of the bishops of Rome for the rest of the century.”

=And attested to by Ireneus…newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric]

Does not mention Peter but implies it I suppose. Anyway it is fabricated and simply mythology some ECFs accepted. Historians know it is false.
.

= This is another protestant innovation…didn’t the Reformers deny or did not see the necessity of apostolic succession…and now you are claiming this?

The Reformers did not make it an issue but could have figured it out if they had tried. It did not matter to them if Peter was a bishop or not just as it does not matter to me. I am claiming it because all historians are teaching it. So far I have provided three experts for those questioning my post. Read them/ I can provide many more. The evidence is overwhelming.

=aul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Never does it say he submits to Peter. You made that up. He wanted agreement from the pillars of the Jerusalem church on thegospel he preached. The leader of that church was James and not Peter but that is another discussion.

=:Let me ask you then…by which authority stemming from the Apostolic lineage did the founder of Methodists submit himself, following the example of St. Paul?

There is no apostolic lineage. That is mythology. Wesleys lineage is no less valid than any Catholic pope. Your bishops lists were fabricated. Wesley submitted himself to noo man just as Paul did not. You are making things up about Paul. Read his letters again.

=:Before Paul and Barnabas went on their first missionary journey, he submits himself to Church authority and are ordained by laying of hands.

Laying on of hands in the NT does not indicate ordination. It implied only a special mission from those who sent him.

=:Let me ask you another question…who sent the methodist founder to preach? Can you trace his apostolic lineage? Did he follow the example of St. Paul? Submitting to an apostle…and being ordained before being sent

He followed the example of St. Paul. No one sent Paul (Gal 1:1) and no one had to send Wesley except Christ Jesus himself. Paul never submitted to anyone and neither was he ordained. You are making up things that did not happen.

I have given short answers but they are based on my research of the historical facts provided by internationally accepted historians and even by Catholic scholars some with the Imprimatur. I think the Catholic church no longer teaches the mythologies you assert. You need to come up to speed.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea, Is Raymond E. Brown a revisionist. Are all the other historians? ^ Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P. (1983). Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Christianity. Paulist Press. p. 98. “As for Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense). There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church–a claim not made till the third century. Most likely he did not spend any majortime at Rome before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that Peter came to the capital.” The people you meantion are not primary sources. Neither Polycarp nor Ignatius said Peter was a bishop of Rome. You need to relearn your history if you think that. Ambrose thought so because that is what they taught in that time period. Of course Ambrose never thought the Bishop of Rome had any more authority than himself. None of them were liars but Ambrose was mistaken. He believed the mytholodgy invented in the third century. I can give more internationally known scholars of this subject if you want. I think the protestants know more history than you realize. We read the Catholic experts. Peace, JohnR

I need to learn my history? LOL! My friend I earned my B.A. and Masters in History, I think you need to stop assuming others on the end have no clue. And is Raymond Brown an early chruch father? Is Raymond Brown the official voice of the past 2,000 years? A big NO! The people I mention are not primary sources? The lived a lot closer than Raymond Brown. Second, the fact Polycarp or Ignatius do not mention Peter does not rebuke Peter’s primacy or living at Rome in any shape or form. Does Polycarp mention the canon of Scripture? Does Ignatius mention the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine? Your argument is based out of mere silence. Third, I never ONCE said they made reference to Peter, I was simply making a point to those early sources: Polycarp,Ignatius,etc.

^ Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P. (1983). Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Christianity. Paulist Press. p. 98.

"As for Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what he did there before he was martyred.

This comment simply says no one knows the exact date when he came to Rome. Does not state or confirms NEVER came to Rome and evidence backs it up! Sources please… You are reading more than it says.

Certainly he was not the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense).

And the CC agrees and acknowledges there already was Christians in Rome. How does that prove he NEVER went to Rome? I guess this guy was a liar? St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, 3,1,1, **180 A.D., **J208 “…in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”

There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church–a claim not made till the third century.

Serious proof? Again…this guy must be an unreliable source. St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, 3,1,1, **180 A.D., **J208 “…in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, chapter III, “…the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.”

Most likely he did not spend any majortime at Rome

Sources please supporting such a position?

before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that Peter came to the capital.

Where are the sources confirming this position?

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. Again, this charge can be dismissed for the same reasons given already, that the Church was forced to practice the faith in an underground situation in order to avoid persecution.

BTW: Perhaps you need to study history past your own shades and be a bit more objective.

 

[Nicea325]

Andrew Louth, translator of Esubius’ History of the Church
in his introduction P xxii regarding the bishop list for the Roman Church.

“The problem for the first century or so is what it is a list of: for evidence
that there was a single bishop leading the Roman Church is lacking for that
period; indeed what evidence there is suggests a rather different picture.
When Clement wrote to the Corinthian Church, he wrote not as a bishop in the
later sense but as one of the presbyters of the Roman Church entrusted with
the task of writing on behalf of the whole Roman Church to the erring Church
of Corinth, similarly, Ignatius writing perhaps a decade later to the Roman
Church, does not seem to envisage a ‘bishop of Rome’, despite his enthusiasm
for monepiscopacy.”

“The other odd thing about Eusebius’ use of the succession list for Rome is more
venial; that for the last half of the third century he has clearly misread it,
reading years for months and months for years, so that, overlooking the
martydom of Xystus II, he has him reigning for another ten years, which upsests
the chronology of the bishops of Rome for the rest of the century.”

Hhmmm?

Eusebius, “The Chronicle” Ad An.Dom 68, J651cc
“Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make a persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously in Rome.”

Eusebius, “History of the Church”, 3,2, 300 A.D., J652a
“After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first appointed to the Episcopacy of the Church at Rome.”

Eusebius, History of the Church 2:14:6. J651dd, 300 A.D.

In the same reign of Claudius, the all good and gracious providence which watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one of the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman for all the others to Rome.

 

[Nicea325]

pablope, Yes I could and just as valid since that list you mention is fabricated. Do you want to know what historians say about it. Here is an example. Andrew Louth, translator of Esubius’ History of the Church in his introduction P xxii regarding the bishop list for the Roman Church. “The problem for the first century or so is what it is a list of: for evidence that there was a single bishop leading the Roman Church is lacking for that period; indeed what evidence there is suggests a rather different picture. When Clement wrote to the Corinthian Church, he wrote not as a bishop in the later sense but as one of the presbyters of the Roman Church entrusted with the task of writing on behalf of the whole Roman Church to the erring Church of Corinth, similarly, Ignatius writing perhaps a decade later to the Roman Church, does not seem to envisage a ‘bishop of Rome’, despite his enthusiasm for monepiscopacy.” “The other odd thing about Eusebius’ use of the succession list for Rome is more venial; that for the last half of the third century he has clearly misread it, reading years for months and months for years, so that, overlooking the martydom of Xystus II, he has him reigning for another ten years, which upsests the chronology of the bishops of Rome for the rest of the century.” Does not mention Peter but implies it I suppose. Anyway it is fabricated and simply mythology some ECFs accepted. Historians know it is false. . The Reformers did not make it an issue but could have figured it out if they had tried. It did not matter to them if Peter was a bishop or not just as it does not matter to me. I am claiming it because all historians are teaching it. So far I have provided three experts for those questioning my post. Read them/ I can provide many more. The evidence is overwhelming. Never does it say he submits to Peter. You made that up. He wanted agreement from the pillars of the Jerusalem church on thegospel he preached. The leader of that church was James and not Peter but that is another discussion. There is no apostolic lineage. That is mythology. Wesleys lineage is no less valid than any Catholic pope. Your bishops lists were fabricated. Wesley submitted himself to noo man just as Paul did not. You are making things up about Paul. Read his letters again. Laying on of hands in the NT does not indicate ordination. It implied only a special mission from those who sent him. He followed the example of St. Paul. No one sent Paul (Gal 1:1) and no one had to send Wesley except Christ Jesus himself. Paul never submitted to anyone and neither was he ordained. You are making up things that did not happen. I have given short answers but they are based on my research of the historical facts provided by internationally accepted historians and even by Catholic scholars some with the Imprimatur. I think the Catholic church no longer teaches the mythologies you assert. You need to come up to speed. Peace, JohnR

Mythologies? Serious? And you need to deal with facts of life and reality.

 

[highrigger1]

=Nicea325;9214019]I need to learn my history? LOL! My friend I earned my B.A. and Masters in History, I think you need to stop assuming others on the end have no clue. And is Raymond Brown an early chruch father? Is Raymond Brown the official voice of the past 2,000 years? A big NO! The people I mention are not primary sources? The lived a lot closer than Raymond Brown. Second, the fact Polycarp or Ignatius do not mention Peter does not rebuke Peter’s primacy or living at Rome in any shape or form. Does Polycarp mention the canon of Scripture? Does Ignatius mention the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine? : .

nicea,

I simply pointed out they did not affirm Peter as a bishop of Rome. You are the one who listed their names as some kind of support.

=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. Again, this charge can be dismissed for the same reasons given already, that the Church was forced to practice the faith in an underground situation in order to avoid persecution. .

Eusebius was quoting other sources which had no knowledge one way or the other. It was mythology began in the third century.

[QUOTEBTW: Perhaps you need to study history past your own shades and be a bit more objective.
[/QUOTE]

I am providing you information from the historians. I notice you provide no reputable historian to refute it. Much of what you assert is simply mythology. People believed it starting around the third century. But historians today know it is false. I dont think the Catholic church even teaches it anymore.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

=Nicea325;9214031]Hhmmm?

Eusebius, “The Chronicle” Ad An.Dom 68, J651cc
“Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make a persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously in Rome.”.

nicea,

I never said Peter never visited Rome. Whats the point?

=Eusebius, “History of the Church”, 3,2, 300 A.D., J652a
“After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first appointed to the Episcopacy of the Church at Rome.”.

Mythology.

Eusebius had no way to know it was not true. Today we know that the Roman church had no monarchical bishops until mid second century. Same for other quotes by Eusebius

Peace, JohnR.

 

[Nicea325]

nicea, I simply pointed out they did not affirm Peter as a bishop of Rome. You are the one who listed their names as some kind of support. Eusebius was quoting other sources which had no knowledge one way or the other. It was mythology began in the third century. [QUOTEBTW: Perhaps you need to study history past your own shades and be a bit more objective.

I am providing you information from the historians. I notice you provide no reputable historian to refute it. Much of what you assert is simply mythology. People believed it starting around the third century. But historians today know it is false. I dont think the Catholic church even teaches it anymore. Peace, JohnR
[/QUOTE]
And they also do not deny or reject him as bishop-do they? Do they mention it? Eusebius was quoting other sources which had no knowledge one way or another? You have documentation supporting your position clearly showing Eusebius was quoting unreliable sources? Reputable historian? Why do I need to provide a historian who lives 2,000 years separated from Peter to confirm it? And I notice you provided NO early church father: rejecting Peter’s residence in Rome, his primacy as heretical,schismatic or a usurpation of Christ.

Much what I assert is mythology? Do you need read anything one provides? How can you call this 3rd century mythology?
Look at the year: 180 AD. St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, 3,1,1, 180 A.D., J208 “…in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, chapter III, “…the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.”

Kindly show me where you get 3rd century when someone said it more 100 years earlier? Show us your historical proof St. Irenaeus is basing it off MYTHOLOGY?

 

[Nicea325]

nicea, I never said Peter never visited Rome. Whats the point? Mythology. Eusebius had no way to know it was not true. Today we know that the Roman church had no monarchical bishops until mid second century. Same for other quotes by Eusebius Peace, JohnR.

Mythology? LOL! I take it Math is not your forte (no offense intended). Explain how you get 3rd century before 180 AD?

St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, 3,1,1, 180 A.D., J208 “…in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”

St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, chapter III, “…the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.”

 

[adf417]

nicea,

I never said Peter never visited Rome. Whats the point?

Mythology.

Eusebius had no way to know it was not true. Today we know that the Roman church had no monarchical bishops until mid second century. Same for other quotes by Eusebius

Peace, JohnR.

John are you saying history is changing before our eyes or is what you are posting going to be considered mythology in the future?

 

[highrigger1]

=pablope;9213524]

Can you post rev 14:21?

Sorry. Rev 21:14

=Then can you explain the following:

St. Paul told St. Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2)

He simply is saying that others will teach the same gospel message he taught. Whats surprising about that?

=St. Ireneus writes…newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)

=*3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears]
, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, *

)

He does not mention Peter but of course the rest is mythology anyway. Ireneaus had no way to know one way or the other. The churches were combattiing the gnostics with their bishops lists proving support from the apostles. Ignatius was replying in kind with his own fabricated list. I am not saying he fabricated it but someone did. Historians know it is false.

=[So let me ask you…who would you trust or believe? Ireneus who was very close to the actual event in history? Or a writer stating his opinion in the 21st century?

Irenaeus was over 100 years past the time of the apostles. For him it might as well be 1000 years. He had no way to know. Modern historians know more than he did about those times.

=[Let me ask a blunt question…do you think Ireneus was dreaming or making something up when he wrote the words above??

He was neither dreaming or making anything up as far as I know. He was repeating a story he wanted very much to be true when he had no way to know one way or the other—same as you.

Why do you think there is nothing wrong? Your paradigm is what resulted in the different cults…the JWs, the SDAs, the Branch davidians…the Jim Jones.

[/quote]

I think truth is important. Truth in history and truth is relaying information. Jim Jones has nothing to do with me or my paradigm.

And if everyone claimed to be a successor of the apostles…then how would you apply this passage from Scripture…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood

One must use ones good brain given by God to make up ones mind. That is what I do and I think it is far safer than taking someone elses opinion without question. If the spirit of truth is in our heart we should be able to differentiate.

Catholic teachings and dogmas gave birth to the Scriptures…and reflect all its teachings since pentecost.

Your opinion unsupported by history or reason. Anyone can make a claim.

Peace, JohnR
[/quote]