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

[stewstew03]

…
Then a lot of Catholic experts have done the same. Here is one to explain it to you.

“1. Antioch church sends Barnabas and Saul; Mission to Cyprus and SE Asia monor (Acts 13;1-14:28)
In this context of prayer and fasting, hands are laid on Barnabas and Saul. We should not
anachronistically speak of this as an ordination; it is a commissioning by the church of Antioc
for a mission that is often counted as the first Pauline journey and dated to AD 46-49.”
Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, P 303, Imprimatur.

…

Listen to your own Catholic experts whose words are approved by your church with the Imprimatur.

Peace, JohnR

Rigger1,
You assume that the historical-critical approach used by Father Brown is superior to the Patristic (or neo-Patristic) approach favored by most Catholic biblical scholars.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isaiah,

You may or may not know that messages like stand up/sit down that are conflicting are what contribute to Schizophrenia…inability to make up ones mind and decide…

So what is it Infant Baptism or not?

Feel free to talk to me as if I was 6 y/o

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Regarding the Sproul-MacArthur debate - there is a podcast available via iTunes called “A Case for Infant Baptism, by R.C. Sproul.”

You can also access it via the Ligonier Ministries website (ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/infant-baptism/).

Thanks stew

 

[Nicea325]

Rigger1,
You assume that the historical-critical approach used by Father Brown is superior to the Patristic (or neo-Patristic) approach favored by most Catholic biblical scholars.

More important, Fr. Brown is NOT the official voice for the entire Church. Rigger1 also stated that the CC no longer teaches the myth about Peter being in Rome or being a bishop. Myth? Funny Rigger1 has not shown me the CC document making a declaration on the subject matter?

 

[stewstew03]

More important, Fr. Brown is NOT the official voice for the entire Church. Rigger1 also stated that the CC no longer teaches the myth about Peter being in Rome or being a bishop. Myth? Funny Rigger1 has not shown me the CC document making a declaration on the subject matter?

I’m not sure Rigger1 fully understands the terms nihil obstat and imprimatur with regard to the Catholic Church.

 

[highrigger1]

highrigger1;9215643:

Highrigger:

I find it amazing how you are STILL ignoring St. Irenaeus quote from 180 AD? WHY? But you have the nerve to state we are making things up? You have the slighest clue about history that much you have proven to me by your constant rhetoric. You are merely parroting the same stuff over and over.

nicea,

I do not ignore him. I have read his writings and his claims to hear Polycarp say he knew the apostles. Irenaeus said many things and historians do not give his history assertions much credibility. His time is over a hundred years after the supposed events so he had no way to know one way or the other. He is repeating legends and myths just as you are. Modern scholars know better. The reason I say the same is because you keep asserting the same thing.

I have provided some of the top historians but you want to dismiss them as if nobody but you knows about Irenaeus. Not so. If you want to trust Irenaeus instead of top scholars and historians then go for it. Not me.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

I am seeing you say “a lot” and “numerous” I am getting the impression that it would be easy for you to make your case with all the sources you have, unfortunately all I am seeing is 3 people

Fergusson, Wills, and Brown.

Since I am not versed in history as most are on this website, I think that you might need more than 3 “modern” historians to make your case here.

suzy,

For you I will provide TWO more.

^ 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.”

Of course there are more I can provide but dont you think five is enough to get the idea across? Its hard to deal with denial. Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

Rigger1,
You assume that the historical-critical approach used by Father Brown is superior to the Patristic (or neo-Patristic) approach favored by most Catholic biblical scholars.

stew,

Yes and so do many other historians and experts in the field. For many reasons we know Irenaeus is wrong on that bishop list. It was fabricated. But when it comes to relating history Irenaeus is wrong and mixed up so much that some historians say his assertions are “manifest nonsense.” He was a great christian theologian though. I give him that. But a poor historian. He repeated whatever he picked up.

The only reason some put their trust in him is they have a lot of emotional baggage invested in what he asserts. Bad reason.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

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

adf,

I am saying that historians are replacing mythology with real history. The Catholic church no longer teaches that Peter was a bishop of Rome although of course they teach their bishops as successors of Peter. This is fine to me. All shepherds of our church are successors of Peter as I see it. Peace, JohnR

 

[Farsight001]

The Catholic church no longer teaches that Peter was a bishop of Rome

Lol. Why do I get the impression that you’re just making things up now?

 

[rinnie]

adf,

I am saying that historians are replacing mythology with real history. The Catholic church no longer teaches that Peter was a bishop of Rome although of course they teach their bishops as successors of Peter. This is fine to me. All shepherds of our church are successors of Peter as I see it. Peace, JohnR

Really since when?

 

[stewstew03]

suzy,

For you I will provide TWO more.

^ 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.”

Of course there are more I can provide but dont you think five is enough to get the idea across? Its hard to deal with denial. Peace, JohnR

Then I take it you don’t refute the authors when they conclude the following:

“…Peter functioned figuratively for the central mainstream in the history of Antioch and Rome…Peter was more than a bishop at Antioch and Rome. Peter was an apostle. Indeed… he seems to have had a remarkably enduring success in building the church of the Gentiles.” (page 206, emphasis added)

You are engaging in proof-texting…

 

[stewstew03]

stew,

Yes and so do many other historians and experts in the field. For many reasons we know Irenaeus is wrong on that bishop list. It was fabricated. But when it comes to relating history Irenaeus is wrong and mixed up so much that some historians say his assertions are “manifest nonsense.” He was a great christian theologian though. I give him that. But a poor historian. He repeated whatever he picked up.

The only reason some put their trust in him is they have a lot of emotional baggage invested in what he asserts. Bad reason.

Peace, JohnR

Rigger1 - it seems you are not reading the entire book by Brown and Meier. They explain that Irenaeus probably recognized the two-fold order of presbyter-bishops during the first century of Christianity. See page 154.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by highrigger1
adf,

I am saying that historians are replacing mythology with real history. The Catholic church no longer teaches that Peter was a bishop of Rome although of course they teach their bishops as successors of Peter. This is fine to me. All shepherds of our church are successors of Peter as I see it. Peace, JohnR

rigger1:

I am curious to know why you have not produced a single CC document stating the CC NO LONGER TEACHES THAT PETER WAS A BISHOP OF ROME? Where on earth are you getting such absurd information? I have been Catholic all my life and I am very curious to know where you read such a source stating the CC no longer teaches it? Where are your sources rigger1?

Now prove to us you are not making this up?

 

[Nicea325]

Rigger1 - it seems you are not reading the entire book by Brown and Meier. They explain that Irenaeus probably recognized the two-fold order of presbyter-bishops during the first century of Christianity. See page 154.

Yes…they taught us that as an under-grad as a History major. It is called “proof-text” in order to present a smoking gun. It is the oldest trick and the weakest!

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;9216880:

nicea,

I do not ignore him. I have read his writings and his claims to hear Polycarp say he knew the apostles. Irenaeus said many things and historians do not give his history assertions much credibility. His time is over a hundred years after the supposed events so he had no way to know one way or the other. He is repeating legends and myths just as you are. Modern scholars know better. The reason I say the same is because you keep asserting the same thing.

I have provided some of the top historians but you want to dismiss them as if nobody but you knows about Irenaeus. Not so. If you want to trust Irenaeus instead of top scholars and historians then go for it. Not me.

Peace, JohnR

Yes you do. You have completely dodged my challenge to you. Why have you not answered?

He is repeating legends and myths just as you are

Now you are changing your position. You made it VERY CLEAR it was a MYTH started in the early 3rd century,so how could Irenaeus said it in 180 AD? Which one is it?

Legend? Wow! Care to tell us where such a legend originated from? Israel? Europe? Antioch? Rome? Where?

You are giving yourself very little credence-do you understand?

And if you want to trust modern scholarship…your choice and your loss.

 

[stewstew03]

Yes…they taught us that as an under-grad as a History major. It is called “proof-text” in order to present a smoking gun. It is the oldest trick and the weakest!

Yep… and no response to my post here.

 

[highrigger1]

Then I take it you don’t refute the authors when they conclude the following:

“…Peter functioned figuratively for the central mainstream in the history of Antioch and Rome…Peter was more than a bishop at Antioch and Rome. Peter was an apostle. Indeed… he seems to have had a remarkably enduring success in building the church of the Gentiles.” (page 206, emphasis added)

You are engaging in proof-texting…

stew,

Notice that Brown does not say Peter was a bishop of Rome or Antioc. He in other places says not. He says Peter was MORE and in the meaning he gives I agree. He was much more than a bishop anywhere anytime. And the churches have a great memory of him.

Of course I use him to buttress my arguments but I think fairly. I am happy to discuss anything Brown teaches. He is the dean of experts in my opinion. I appreciate him very much. I am glad you are reading him. Catholics all should read him. That would save a lot of aruments Protestants also should read him. That would also save a lot of arguments.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

highrigger1;9217884:

Yes you do. You have completely dodged my challenge to you. Why have you not answered?

He is repeating legends and myths just as you are

Now you are changing your position. You made it VERY CLEAR it was a MYTH started in the early 3rd century,so how could Irenaeus said it in 180 AD? Which one is it?

You are giving yourself very little credence-do you understand?

And if you want to trust modern scholarship…your choice and your loss.

Nicea,

The myth that Peter was a bishop of Rome started in the third century. Irenaeus did not say Peter was a bishop of Rome. He does seem to indicate Peter appointed Linus however. Both are myths. The myths going around were slightly different but myths nevertheless.

Legend? Wow! Care to tell us where such a legend originated from? Israel? Europe? Antioch? Rome? Where?

Hard to say but I have a theory.

1 Clement says that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. This of course is known to be false but that was the myth the church at Rome believed. Clement mentioned nothing about Peter being a bishop because Clement himself was not a bishop. There was no bishop of Rome until mid second century. Remember that the Roman christians were wiped out by Nero about 40 years before. No doubt no one knew who really began that church but they did have memories of Peter and Paul being there.so they assumed they were founded by them. Nice theory that sounded good.

At the time of Irenaeus there were bishops list battles going on with the gnostics who had their own bishops lists to prove they were from the apostles and the orthodox were not. Naturally the orthodox churches were coming up with their own to refute the Gnostics. That was still going on in the time of Eusebius. Irenaeus had some of that from the church at Rome. It did not claim Peter was a bishop of Rome. This was added later in the third century. By that time they had bishops so they reconstructed the myth that the first Bishop of Rome was Peter. They had forgotten that there was no bishop of Rome til mid-second century. It was all retrospective as professional historians explain. Remember there was no ordinations or official successions until about that time so they presumed that occured before.when it did not. When they had no name, any name would do. Sometimes the lists were simply a list of names. This is all explained by Andrew Louth in his research into the bishops lists of Rome and elsewhere.

Makes sense to me. Peace, JohnR

 

[Farsight001]

stew,

Notice that Brown does not say Peter was a bishop of Rome or Antioc. He in other places says not. He says Peter was MORE and in the meaning he gives I agree. He was much more than a bishop anywhere anytime. And the churches have a great memory of him.

Of course I use him to buttress my arguments but I think fairly. I am happy to discuss anything Brown teaches. He is the dean of experts in my opinion. I appreciate him very much. I am glad you are reading him. Catholics all should read him. That would save a lot of aruments Protestants also should read him. That would also save a lot of arguments.

Peace, JohnR

You’re blatantly avoiding the questions asked of you and the points made against your arguments. If you’re going to be so intentionally dodgy and weasily, then don’t bother posting at all. This is a discussion forum. You DISCUSS. Join in the discussion or stop wasting our time.