Proof of Pope

[Menorrah]

It began with the Words of Christ in Matthew 16:18. Never mind James or any of the others. It started with Peter (Kepha). Where is the scriptural evidence that Christ appointed James to anything? And, if not Christ, who else had the authority?

Oopps. It isn’t mercygate who said it. It was po18guy.

 

[mercygate]

I did not say that we will only talk about Matthew 16:18. I’d say it would be the central theme of our discussion. And yes, taken with the rest of the scripture and early church, that’s what I was proposing even at the start. I can’t remember if it was you who said “never mind”, referring to Eusebius’ Church History where it was stated that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem.

I did not say “never mind”. Eusebius is one of our most valuable resources. He quotes first & second century sources, such as Paphias, whose works have not survived.

 

[Menorrah]

I did not say “never mind”. Eusebius is one of our most valuable resources. He quotes first & second century sources, such as Paphias, whose works have not survived.

It was po18guy who said it. But it was you who said “impossible”, right?

Anyway, if that were the case, let’s continue where we left.

We have already proven in the accounts at the book of Acts and at the Church History that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem and that the central government of the church was at Jerusalem at that time.

What we are missing is when and why it transferred to Rome.

I will offer one historical account from Josephus about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as possible reason. What do you think?

 

[Bwsherman]

Yes, that’s close-minded. At the instance you used the word “impossible (to break)” in defence an existing position, that is already a sign of not being open to ‘other’ proposition.

Being a convert doesn’t translate to “open-mindedness”. There are people who are typically in the defense once their existing belief or position is under fire.

Anyway, that is not the point of discussion in this thread. Just tell me once you’re ready to an open-minded discussion regarding Matthew 16:18, I am willing to discuss it further with you.

Did you do the comparison in the two texts of Matthew and Isaiah?

 

[mercygate]

It was po18guy who said it. But it was you who said “impossible”, right?

Anyway, if that were the case, let’s continue where we left.

We have already proven in the accounts at the book of Acts and at the Church History that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem and that the central government of the church was at Jerusalem at that time.

What we are missing is when and why it transferred to Rome.

I will offer one historical account from Josephus about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as possible reason. What do you think?

Definitely. The NT period Church certainly WAS centered in Jerusalem. That is why the “mercygate theory” based on Paul’s and Eusebius’ chronology, that Peter returned for the council, does not (to my mind) “threaten” the idea of Petrine primacy in any way.

Keep in mind that the WAY in which the Petrine primacy would play out in history had not yet taken shape. (Because “history” had not yet happened.) The destruction of the temple would be a critical feature in transferring the center to Rome – not only because Peter died there, but because Paul did also.

Even those who like to “divide up” the preaching between Peter as the Apostle to the Jews and Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles can see that BOTH principals in that apostolate are in Rome. Also, the fact that Paul is considered an Apostle at all is part of the transition from the Church of the Apostles to the Church built upon the Apostles, wherever it is located.

The Foundation Stones are the twelve Apostles (Eph 2:20, Rev 21:14). But the Apostolic mission must continue “to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20). Thus, Rome, where Peter AND Paul both planted the Church would be a privileged locale, even without the scriptural warrant of Petrine primacy. Add to that the handy seaport and the excellent roads from which all points of the Empire could be reached, and you have the ideal point for settling the “central office.”

Except for Nero.

 

[Bwsherman]

I was talking about “both” scriptural and historical. The missing link is the when and why. There are a lot of theories (unproven beliefs) regarding this. Your second paragraph is one of them.

The devil can also utilize the leading power to do exactly what he wants. He is willing to give power and glory to anyone who will accept the bribe. Even Jesus he tempted:

Matthew 4:8-9 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

How do we know whether some of the early church didn’t accept the same bribe from the devil?

And it was foretold:

1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

You are telling me you believe that St. Peter was in league with the devil when he went to Rome to preach the gospel? Also, what do you mean it is an unproven theory that Rome helped spread the gospel? It is a fact.

 

[Menorrah]

Did you do the comparison in the two texts of Matthew and Isaiah?

I did many times and mind you, I am a believer of centralized church organization so there’s nothing to worry about that. We can discuss in detail if you want.

 

[Menorrah]

You are telling me you believe that St. Peter was in league with the devil when he went to Rome to preach the gospel? Also, what do you mean it is an unproven theory that Rome helped spread the gospel? It is a fact.

Not too fast. Let’s take it slowly. Can you tell me when and why Peter went to Rome? Please give historical accounts.

 

[Bwsherman]

I did many times and mind you, I am a believer of centralized church organization so there’s nothing to worry about that. We can discuss in detail if you want.

I am not sure what your being a believer of ‘centralized church organization’ has to do with anything, but ok…let us discuss.

Christ was the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, among many other things, and in fulfilling this role he appointed for himself a ‘prime minisiter’ that would be the vicar in his stead. No other apostle is given this task and, therefore, St. Peter is given primacy and authority just as the ‘prime minister’ had in the Davidic Kingdom. Couple that with numerous early church fathers appealing to the Bishop of Rome to settle disputes, and I believe the case is closed. Of course, I know that you do not agree and I will be open to hear what you have to say.

 

[mercygate]

I am not sure what your being a believer of ‘centralized church organization’ has to do with anything, but ok…let us discuss.

Christ was the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, among many other things, and in fulfilling this role he appointed for himself a ‘prime minisiter’ that would be the vicar in his stead. No other apostle is given this task and, therefore, St. Peter is given primacy and authority just as the ‘prime minister’ had in the Davidic Kingdom. Couple that with numerous early church fathers appealing to the Bishop of Rome to settle disputes, and I believe the case is closed. Of course, I know that you do not agree and I will be open to hear what you have to say.

Menorrah asked for historical references. Is there any reason to reject Eusebius’ date of 42 A.D. – Especially in combination with Irenaeus’ statement that the “most illustrious” church at Rome was established by both Peter and Paul? Ignatiius, in his epistle to the Romans refers to the Apostolic foundation there by “Peter and Paul.” Eusebius also quotes a letter to Soter, Bishop of Rome, dating from 166 AD, which refers to the “plantings” made at Corinth and Rome by Peter and Paul. There are several early references to the martyrdom of the two Apostles “at Rome” under Nero.

 

[Menorrah]

I am not sure what your being a believer of ‘centralized church organization’ has to do with anything, but ok…let us discuss.

Christ was the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, among many other things, and in fulfilling this role he appointed for himself a ‘prime minisiter’ that would be the vicar in his stead. No other apostle is given this task and, therefore, St. Peter is given primacy and authority just as the ‘prime minister’ had in the Davidic Kingdom. Couple that with numerous early church fathers appealing to the Bishop of Rome to settle disputes, and I believe the case is closed. Of course, I know that you do not agree and I will be open to hear what you have to say.

I agree very much about the ‘prime minister’ role or should we say, ‘Master of the palace’ role as being the keeper while the King is away.

And you are using Isaiah 22 to prove the ‘shadow’ of papacy, right? Let’s focus our discussion to Peter and keys of heaven, etc.

 

[Bwsherman]

Not too fast. Let’s take it slowly. Can you tell me when and why Peter went to Rome? Please give historical accounts.

I cannot do what you ask of me. I have given you the why aspect of your question, however as far as the when is concerned, it is impossible to put a definitive date on it. One can appeal to both Eusebius and St. Jerome, but both men were working off a system that was not set up to record such information.

You seem to be so locked into needing something spelled out for you in explicit terms otherwise you will not believe it. That is a very Thomastic mindset. I would be willing to bet that you would not need the same sort of definitive definition for the dogma concerning the trinity or the hypostatic union of Christ. And why would that be that you would not have a problem with those dogmas even though they are not explicit in scripture or history? Because of the Church’s answer to Arianism and Gnosticism.
You utilize the Church and give Her authority only so far as it agrees with what you do. After that you discard Her and Her teaching. That to me is like slapping your mother after She has breastfeed you.

 

[Bwsherman]

I agree very much about the ‘prime minister’ role or should we say, ‘Master of the palace’ role as being the keeper while the King is away.

And you are using Isaiah 22 to prove the ‘shadow’ of papacy, right? Let’s focus our discussion to Peter and keys of heaven, etc.

I do not propose that it is a shadow of anything. I state that it is evidence that Christ was giving the Church what He know that She would need to help settle disputes like you and I are having right now.

 

[Menorrah]

I cannot do what you ask of me. I have given you the why aspect of your question, however as far as the when is concerned, it is impossible to put a definitive date on it. One can appeal to both Eusebius and St. Jerome, but both men were working off a system that was not set up to record such information.

You seem to be so locked into needing something spelled out for you in explicit terms otherwise you will not believe it. That is a very Thomastic mindset. I would be willing to bet that you would not need the same sort of definitive definition for the dogma concerning the trinity or the hypostatic union of Christ. And why would that be that you would not have a problem with those dogmas even though they are not explicit in scripture or history? Because of the Church’s answer to Arianism and Gnosticism.
You utilize the Church and give Her authority only so far as it agrees with what you do. After that you discard Her and Her teaching. That to me is like slapping your mother after She has breastfeed you.

You are wrong. I am not asking for specific date. I am asking for an account. “WHEN” can be answered many ways like “right after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD” or “during the time of the reign of Nero”, etc.

Now, can you answer “when” and please give historical accounts or proofs?

 

[mercygate]

I agree very much about the ‘prime minister’ role or should we say, ‘Master of the palace’ role as being the keeper while the King is away.

And you are using Isaiah 22 to prove the ‘shadow’ of papacy, right? Let’s focus our discussion to Peter and keys of heaven, etc.

How does Isaiah 22:22 not relate typologically to Peter and the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven?

 

[Menorrah]

I do not propose that it is a shadow of anything. I state that it is evidence that Christ was giving the Church what He know that She would need to help settle disputes like you and I are having right now.

I’m alright with that. I used the word ‘shadow’ because in Hebrews 8:5, that same word was used to describe it.

 

[Bwsherman]

You are wrong. I am not asking for specific date. I am asking for an account. “WHEN” can be answered many ways like “right after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD” or “during the time of the reign of Nero”, etc.

Now, can you answer “when” and please give historical accounts or proofs?

Sure can, in the “Chronicle” of Eusebius the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of St. Peter and St. Paul (67-68); this date, accepted by St. Jerome, is that generally held. I am supposing this what you mean?

 

[Menorrah]

How does Isaiah 22:22 not relate typologically to Peter and the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven?

It does.

 

[mercygate]

It does.

Sorry. I misunderstood.

 

[Menorrah]

Sure can, in the “Chronicle” of Eusebius the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of St. Peter and St. Paul (67-68); this date, accepted by St. Jerome, is that generally held. I am supposing this what you mean?

Alright then and it is also said that Peter remained in Rome for 25 years. Therefore, using this account, Peter went to Rome sometime around 42-43 A.D, which was the time of the reign of Claudius.

At the time of Claudius, Jews were asked to leave Rome (Acts 18:2).