The historicity of the Church

[marywarfield]

Ok for the imagery . For Abraham it is plain that they are physical as well as spiritual “father”. So now how does the imagery apply to Peter ? Others have said it better that Peter physically was first in many things, especially on Pentecost and Cornelius (gentiles) but the real connection again is his faith declaration (another first) and in that we are one with Peter and led us by example. I like the O’s word “pappa” from whence came "pope’ as in "father ", but applied to all bishops who go back to Peter and the apostles, and again Peter being the first but it is imagery more than continual office over other pappas. Just as Abraham can only be a one time first, so was Peter. As the OT moved on from Abraham so should we from Peter, without resurrecting a type of monument to him or the office as if on a type of Mount of Transfiguration.
Binding and loosing

Yes but you don’t want to refer to OT so much that you actually go backward and not forward into something "new’’. It is for good reason some have called the Holy Spirit the Vicar. Some have said we, the Body of Christ, are His finger here on the Earth…Further , the OT has many dispensations and types of governance of which we once here of this vicar or prime minister. It does not seem to be a continual office thru out OT as I do not think Peter’s role can ever be duplicated and was not intended to ,except thru the apostles and their successors. Further, Peter was to make disciples and a disciple does what the teacher does. Christ did not commission to make lay people out of all nations. This is “new”

You are skipping my point on Isiaah 22:21-25. The institution
of the King’s Vicar.

We HAVE to go to the OT.
The Catholic Church has never stuttered on this:
The New Testament is hidden in the Old and the
Old is found in the New.
If you do not know how to read it properly back and
forth and understand the repeated phrases and numbers you
end up with a very skewed view of Jesus Christ. As in
MOST Sola Churches.
One reason so many object to the Petrine office
is they wish to believe Christ did away with the importance of
the OT and replaced it. But He didn’t. Everything from
the Old is still with us- but with a New Covenant,
new Tamid Lamb, and a spiritual kingdom as well.

This IS actually the problem with the Sola and more
so with PI. People miss most of the point of many things
Jesus said and did.

We have to remember- it was EXTREMELY expensive
to write anything down then. People did not waste money
on hyperbole or flowery adjectives. They said ONLY
what they meant and no more. After all they were paying
the scribe for not just materials but by the character.

So let’s experiment Benhur-

Why did people believe the Baptist was Elijah?
And why was the Baptist not baptizing
in an actually populated area?
What signs in the accounts of the Gospels
explain these two things?

 

[joe371]

Aw Joe, if it weren’t for the “but’s”. Maybe “we” fight foolishly, even as did the apostles from time to time, not biting their tongues.

Did Jesus leave us with a way to know who’s interpretation is the one he intended his followers to embrace? The Catholic understanding is different from the Lutheran understanding the and Lutheran understanding is different from other churches.

 

[joe371]

Apparently all three of you have chosen somehow as have I. So it is not "how’’ to decide, for we all have. Now I do not feel in the need for further refereeing do you ? That is do you need for someone to tell you you are right, after all we have already been told ?

OK. I digress.

 

[joe371]

benhur;11986133] A teacher teaches infallibly only if what he says is true.

Think about that statement for a second…

 

[joe371]

benhur;11986133]
The Greek is considered 100% infallibly logical and true and Jesus is both Petras and Petros in scripture while Peter is the one smaller rock/stone. And all of us are built upon, Peter also, and the other eleven as per Revelations

We have all agreed that Jesus is the divine Rock. The word cephas, referring to Simon is found right in the NT.

Why you deny the grammatical logic of - you are rock and on this rock… I do not understand, and I say that with respect. If Jesus wanted to refer to Simon as a little rock versus cephas (immovable rock) there would have been a better word to use, as opposed to Petros - namely lithos.

Jesus and his disciples were Jews who spoke Aramaic to each other. In John 1:42 we are told that the actual nickname Jesus gave to Simon bar-Jonah is Kepha which is Hellenized into Greek as the transliterated Kephas;we see it in English as “Cephas.”

And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).

 

[Cube2]

History tells us that the first Christians were called the baptizers from whence came the Baptist

Check your history again.

 

[Cube2]

In the latest Sola Scriptura thread, my friend Per Crucem posted:

This in reply to the unbroken line of the historical Christian Churches: Oriental Orthodox (OO), Eastern Orthodox (EO), and Catholic (CC).

All of us (Me being Catholic) can trace our undisputed origin to the Apostles, and therefore to Christ. We each blame the other for separating but we all owe our existence to Christ and the evangelization of the Apostles themselves.

It is a very common argument that we are not the Church that Jesus founded.

I am not interested in ideas, opinions, or gut feelings. I want dry, cold and hard facts. We can produce dry, cold and hard facts, so we expect nothing less in return.

This brings a very dramatic question in place…
**
When, Where, and How did the Church that Jesus founded disappear?**

The Church of Jesus Christ disappeared when Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity through the Edict of Milan of Jan 313AD. Later the Edict of Thessaloniki (378AD) which made Christianity the only religion of the Roman Empire. All territories that were ruled by Rome had to denounce their religions and take up Christianity. So, they demanded their believes also to be included in the new religion. Thus, they were included making a Universal Church or Catholic, meaning for all the people.
Later the title of the Roman Emperor, Pontiff, was given to the Bishop of Rome. He also assumed a Greek title Pape, ie Pope etc

Below is a an excerpt of the chronology of events that were gradually adopted in the Universal Church of the Roman Empire.

1. Sign of the Cross 310 A.D.
2. Mary declared “Mother of God” 431 A.D.
3. Canonization of dead saints 995 A.D.
4. Rosary beads 1090 A.D.
5. Transubstantiation of the host 1215 A.D.
6. Roman Catholic as the only true church 1303 A.D.
7. Doctrine of the seven sacraments 1439 A.D.
8. Tradition of equal authority to the Bible 1545 A.D.
9. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary 1854 A.D.
10. Pope reaffirms Mary as Mother of God 1931 A.D.
11. Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950 A.D.

You can confirm this through research in Catholic literature and also in the internet.

 

[marywarfield]

The Church of Jesus Christ disappeared when Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity through the Edict of Milan of Jan 313AD. Later the Edict of Thessaloniki (378AD) which made Christianity the only religion of the Roman Empire. All territories that were ruled by Rome had to denounce their religions and take up Christianity. So, they demanded their believes also to be included in the new religion. Thus, they were included making a Universal Church or Catholic, meaning for all the people.
Later the title of the Roman Emperor, Pontiff, was given to the Bishop of Rome. He also assumed a Greek title Pape, ie Pope etc

Below is a an excerpt of the chronology of events that were gradually adopted in the Universal Church of the Roman Empire.

1. Sign of the Cross 310 A.D.
2. Mary declared “Mother of God” 431 A.D.
3. Canonization of dead saints 995 A.D.
4. Rosary beads 1090 A.D.
5. Transubstantiation of the host 1215 A.D.
6. Roman Catholic as the only true church 1303 A.D.
7. Doctrine of the seven sacraments 1439 A.D.
8. Tradition of equal authority to the Bible 1545 A.D.
9. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary 1854 A.D.
10. Pope reaffirms Mary as Mother of God 1931 A.D.
11. Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950 A.D.

You can confirm this through research in Catholic literature and also in the internet.

The Church of Jesus Christ never disappeared. It is alive
and well throughout the world.
To say His Church disappeared is to deny that He
is who He said he was. Which no actual Christian
can rightly do.

 

[TexanKnight]

The Church of Jesus Christ disappeared when Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity through the Edict of Milan of Jan 313AD. Later the Edict of Thessaloniki (378AD) which made Christianity the only religion of the Roman Empire. All territories that were ruled by Rome had to denounce their religions and take up Christianity. So, they demanded their believes also to be included in the new religion. Thus, they were included making a Universal Church or Catholic, meaning for all the people.
Later the title of the Roman Emperor, Pontiff, was given to the Bishop of Rome. He also assumed a Greek title Pape, ie Pope etc

Below is a an excerpt of the chronology of events that were gradually adopted in the Universal Church of the Roman Empire.

1. Sign of the Cross 310 A.D.
2. Mary declared “Mother of God” 431 A.D.
3. Canonization of dead saints 995 A.D.
4. Rosary beads 1090 A.D.
5. Transubstantiation of the host 1215 A.D.
6. Roman Catholic as the only true church 1303 A.D.
7. Doctrine of the seven sacraments 1439 A.D.
8. Tradition of equal authority to the Bible 1545 A.D.
9. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary 1854 A.D.
10. Pope reaffirms Mary as Mother of God 1931 A.D.
11. Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950 A.D.

You can confirm this through research in Catholic literature and also in the internet.

All you prove with these dates is that the Church Jesus started continued to grow and evolve. Thank you for that proof.

 

[benhur]

Did Jesus leave us with a way to know who’s interpretation is the one he intended his followers to embrace? The Catholic understanding is different from the Lutheran understanding the and Lutheran understanding is different from other churches.

I do not think the apostles had time to debate such distinct pickyune details between transubstantiation and consubstantiation But I like the thumbs up.

 

[benhur]

We have all agreed that Jesus is the divine Rock. The word cephas, referring to Simon is found right in the NT.

Do we agree both the masculine and feminine rock are applied to Jesus in scripture ? He is both Petras and Petros. ! Cor.10:4 " Moses…drank from the Rock…and that Rock (Petras) was Christ" or 1 Peter 2:8 “a rock (petras) that make them fall” or the petras where jesus was entombed Matt 27:60 . Petras is immovable not petros. Peter is Petros. By the way, did Peter receive that name immediately, chapter 1, or was he prophesying the later discourse we are discussing ?I thought some say Simon received at the “rock” discourse in a later chapter.

Why you deny the grammatical logic of - you are rock and on this rock… I do not understand, and I say that with respect. If Jesus wanted to refer to Simon as a little rock versus cephas (immovable rock) there would have been a better word to use, as opposed to Petros - namely lithos.

Everything could have been worded differently. Jesus could have have "on you (Peter) I will build, or "on Me (Jesus) I will build, or “by this revelation/confession I will build” or as you suggest lithos. We do not know if cephas was used twice for there is the word shua for stone in aramaic. All we have is “on petras I will build” in the inspired Greek.

Jesus and his disciples were Jews who spoke Aramaic to each other. In John 1:42 we are told that the actual nickname Jesus gave to Simon bar-Jonah is Kepha which is Hellenized into Greek as the transliterated Kephas;we see it in English as “Cephas.”

We don’t know how the aramaic conversation went save for the Greek and we do not know if Jesus pointed to Himself with the “petras”. I still lean on Greek rendering but do not rule out the obvious play with words that allows Christ as Petras and Peter as a rock/ stone upon Christ. That Peter is upon Christ solidly is undeniable, as per Revelations citing the apostles as our foundation. Only Christ was is unmovable. Peter is now unmovable as part of our foundation but while on this earth he was movable, except when he was walking in truth and spirit, walking with divine revelation.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The Church of Jesus Christ disappeared when Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity through the Edict of Milan of Jan 313AD. Later the Edict of Thessaloniki (378AD) which made Christianity the only religion of the Roman Empire. All territories that were ruled by Rome had to denounce their religions and take up Christianity. So, they demanded their believes also to be included in the new religion. Thus, they were included making a Universal Church or Catholic, meaning for all the people.

Ummm, like your post above (rightly) says, “check your history.”
The Church was called “Catholic” well before 378AD.

Later the title of the Roman Emperor, Pontiff, was given to the Bishop of Rome. He also assumed a Greek title Pape, ie Pope etc

How crazy is that, right? As the Church spread throughout the Greek & Roman world, they started using Greek & Roman words and titles.

Below is a an excerpt of the chronology of events that were gradually adopted in the Universal Church of the Roman Empire.

You must’ve forgot one:

1. Jesus breaks His promise

(must be, according to YOUR beliefs)

You can confirm this through research in Catholic literature and also in the internet.

You also forgot some things, like the Church defining the Trinity, and the hypostatic union, declaring many false ideas heretical, etc. All through the Holy Spirit.

Would you argue that the Trinity and other things were already understood?
I would respond by asking why your list shows many things which were understood, and the dates given simply state when they were officially declared, just like the Trinity.

 

[benhur]

All you prove with these dates is that the Church Jesus started continued to grow and evolve. Thank you for that proof.

Yes, but that change leaves a wider chasm to cross between tradition and what is actually apostolic from the beginning. Enables division and the throwing of anathemas and allegations of man made doctrines/practices from one side to the other.

 

[benhur]

How crazy is that, right? As the Church spread throughout the Greek & Roman world, they started using Greek & Roman words and titles.

Hi FKB. One thing is a new name, but another is a new thing . Like what is the big deal if in the OT we find Israel wanting a king, like their neighbors ? If one side of the chasm shouts you are like Korah the other side shouts back the Israel/king incident.

You also forgot some things, like the Church defining the Trinity, and the hypostatic union, declaring many false ideas heretical, etc. All through the Holy Spirit.

Yes, the Good , the Bad , and the Ugly. We are told to give honor when due I think because it is not always due. But for sure honor is due for the things you mentioned. Two thousand years is a long time though to only be honorable, and the wheat and the tares together .

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes, but that change leaves a wider chasm to cross between tradition and what is actually apostolic from the beginning. Enables division and the throwing of anathemas and allegations of man made doctrines/practices from one side to the other.

how?

If I tell my son when he is 5 to never use drugs, then, when he is 16, I write a Bill of Rights for him that says to never use drugs…is when I wrote it down the first time I taught the concept?

you mistake codifying with teaching. That is a mistake

 

[benhur]

how?

If I tell my son when he is 5 to never use drugs, then, when he is 16, I write a Bill of Rights for him that says to never use drugs…is when I wrote it down the first time I taught the concept?

you mistake codifying with teaching. That is a mistake

That is good illustration but you are the same teacher at five and at 16. It would be more like you tell your son no drugs at five but then you pass away and step father does the bill of rights at 16 and says not even medical purposed drugs,not even an aspirin . How do we know your original intent ? (there are some folk who literally don’t take drugs).

 

[TexanKnight]

That is good illustration but you are the same teacher at five and at 16. It would be more like you tell your son no drugs at five but then you pass away and step father does the bill of rights at 16 and says not even medical purposed drugs,not even an aspirin . How do we know your original intent ? (there are some folk who literally don’t take drugs).

No. It would be like if I died and someone who knew me and my traditions took over and wrote it down

Again, do not confuse codified with new teachings

 

[joe371]

benhur;11989775]Do we agree both the masculine and feminine rock are applied to Jesus in scripture ? He is both Petras and Petros. ! Cor.10:4 " Moses…drank from the Rock…and that Rock (Petras) was Christ" or 1 Peter 2:8 “a rock (petras) that make them fall” or the petras where jesus was entombed Matt 27:60 .

Do you agree that petros was used, as opposed to petra, due to the feminine connotation? Calling Simon petra would be like calling me Josephine.

Do we also agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and therefore he said this to Simon: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.” Granted, every word would have been in Aramaic, as opposed to English; pointing out the obvious I suppose.

Petras is immovable not petros.

You just said that Peter is immovable, and that Peter is not immovable. “You are Petros and on this petra…Same rock…

Peter is Petros. By the way, did Peter receive that name immediately, chapter 1, or was he prophesying the later discourse we are discussing ?I thought some say Simon received at the “rock” discourse in a later chapter.

Scripture refers to Simon as Cephas. Therefore the idea that Jesus renamed Simon, as an insignificant stone, loses it validity. Why would Jesus even bother renaming him as a little stone? Makes no sense.

And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter). John 1

No need to discuss petros and petra, when we have it right from our Lords mouth! Perhaps this is why Simon was the only one given the keys to the kingdom. Jesus was using Cephas and his successors, in a unique way, which is why He tells us that even hell will not vanquish His church built on Cephas.

In the end didn’t Jesus leave the final decision, regarding doctrinal disputes, up to His church leadership, guided by the HS, as opposed you, me or anyone else?

 

[Cube2]

Are you suggesting that Peter was in fact the principal leader of Jesus’ church (along with the other apostles, including Paul) once Jesus left this world (ascension), but that leadership ended once Peter left the world (death)?

It is evident that Peter was the principal leader of the apostles. An example is after Pentecost: Acts:2:14: But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:…
Peter stood up before all apostles to defend the spectacular event of Pentecost.

However, in terms of spiritual guidance, we see in Acts,
Acts:15:1: And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved”.
Acts:15:2: When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

When we read the subsequent events, we find that in Jerusalem, the apostles sat and determined the matter. It was not Peter alone who determined the conclusion, but even James quoted the Old Testament scriptures to support Peter’s encounter of a gentile Cornelius.

The church in Jerusalem declined due to persecution and we read that the believers migrated to Antioch where they were first called Christians.
Acts:11:26: … And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
In Peter’s writing and understanding, it is not clear that he left a successor.
But its very clear that Paul in all the churches he started, he would appoint bishops and other leaders. He later commissioned Timothy as his major successor, and Titus as a minor successor.

 

[joe371]

It is evident that Peter was the principal leader of the apostles. An example is after Pentecost: Acts:2:14: But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:…
Peter stood up before all apostles to defend the spectacular event of Pentecost.

However, in terms of spiritual guidance, we see in Acts,
Acts:15:1: And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved”.
Acts:15:2: When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

When we read the subsequent events, we find that in Jerusalem, the apostles sat and determined the matter. It was not Peter alone who determined the conclusion, but even James quoted the Old Testament scriptures to support Peter’s encounter of a gentile Cornelius.

The church in Jerusalem declined due to persecution and we read that the believers migrated to Antioch where they were first called Christians.
Acts:11:26: … And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
In Peter’s writing and understanding, it is not clear that he left a successor.
But its very clear that Paul in all the churches he started, he would appoint bishops and other leaders. He later commissioned Timothy as his major successor, and Titus as a minor successor.

it’s never Peter alone…The Petrine office and Ecumenical councils…

It would be silly to give Peter the keys if Jesus did not have successors in mind…