The Universal Church

[historyfan81]

Yeah thats according to catholisim
I don’t know if Jesus planned for the Pope’s to be religious Cesars and then kings of their own nation
And Curch and state should be united

(Wich undermines the whole give things to cesar ans give things to god )

It was this that allowed materialism and the decrepency of the Curch during the middle ages .
(Which is not as bad as protestans point out but it was really surprising how corruption political power and more made the Curch no better political intreguie)

In terms (note this is my believe even though I believe it do to many historical reasons )

The Roman Catholic Church was not funded by Jesus or by Peter it appears somewhere around the late second century and the beginning of the third century AD

So yes a protestans that keeps the comandnets of god and believe the testimony of Jesus is a child of God

If he is baptized in the name of the father the son and the holy spirit with water and he is born again and keeps the comandnets of god .

He is a chirstian, like I said being part of an institution doesn’t make any less or more chirstian.

 

[steve-b]

Yeah thats according to catholisim

Hey,

Historically and theologically speaking,

the Catholic Church is the only Church Jesus established. It goes back, by name, in writing, historically, to the 1st century. Have you not seen all the references?

historyfan81:

I don’t know if Jesus planned for the Pope’s to be religious Cesars and then kings of their own nation
And Curch and state should be united Wich undermines the whole give things to cesar ans give things to god )

Jesus didn’t set up Peter as Caesar. But Jesus does call Peter the Greatest among the apostles and he would rule etc, answering their argument over that issue. And that coincides with Jesus giving Peter the keys of the kingdom.
For space, see HERE

BTW, One of the titles of the pope, is Servant of the Servants of God. First used by Gregory the Great who was pope and doctor of the Church. Born at [Rome] about 540; died 12 March 604.

If interested, Further reading HERE

historyfan81:

The Roman Catholic Church was not funded by Jesus or by Peter it appears somewhere around the late second century and the beginning of the third century AD

Since you are a historyfan, may I share the following with you

1st century history referenced

HERE

And

HERE

historyfan81:

So yes a protestans that keeps the comandnets of god and believe the testimony of Jesus is a child of God

If he is baptized in the name of the father the son and the holy spirit with water and he is born again and keeps the comandnets of god .

He is a chirstian, like I said being part of an institution doesn’t make any less or more chirstian.

How does one keep the commandments of God but deliberately NOT belong to Our Lord’s Church and not receive / participate in the sacraments HE instituted for our salvation?

Please Show me your evidence properly referenced for YOUR views

 

[historyfan81]

theologically speakin you can claim that it was founded in first century judea , historically speaking its like saying Romlus founfed the roman republic

1. but the popes did claim this , the thing you passed me , is jesus saying the humbulest umong you is the one that would rule. then changes the subjet to peter and how the tempation would ocurr , its not validating him , it doest say he is the ἡγέομαι or even implies it other wise , the structure of the passage would be different ,saying something in the lines of you simon peter lead or that you are the humbulest among you wich would have been a clear indication .
2. yes the word catholic existed ? so ? does that mean the roman catholic curch existed? no

its like saying the word Iran existed in the time of sha khosrow therefore the 20th century nation of iran existed in the 6th century
or course not
(its an assosiation fallacy)

 

[historyfan81]

ok i belive that the roman catholic curch apears in the historical records around the time range that i out since its around this time the biggest catholic traditions come in to play

the moden undestading of apostolic sucession comes around in the later third century AD.

this is also the century where we see 100% the idea of papal supremacy over the other bishops

saint worship apears around in the third century AD

other historical things i have encounrered

did peter found the curch of rome ? in a literal sense mostly likely no , he did go there , but by the time of paul letter to the romans it was already 55 ad and the curch there was already thriving , and peter is not mentioned

the curch in rome could be as old as 41 AD since this is the year clauduis expluses the jews for the debates of chrestus , so by 41 ad there most have been a significant chirstian population among the jewsih comunnity of the city.

peter most likely comes around the late 50s AD

now one can argue that he founded the curch in a spiritual way , but literal no , that is not historicaly rigth

so most of the cores of the roman catholic curch ( so these are not minor things like at what day do we celebrate easter these are core tenenats) traditions apear in the late 2nd century and third century AD.

 

[steve-b]

theologically speakin you can claim that it was founded in first century judea , historically speaking its like saying Romlus founfed the roman republic

1. but the popes did claim this , the thing you passed me , is jesus saying the humbulest umong you is the one that would rule. then changes the subjet to peter and how the tempation would ocurr , its not validating him , it doest say he is the ἡγέομαι or even implies it other wise , the structure of the passage would be different ,saying something in the lines of you simon peter lead or that you are the humbulest among you wich would have been a clear indication .
2. yes the word catholic existed ? so ? does that mean the roman catholic curch existed? no

its like saying the word Iran existed in the time of sha khosrow therefore the 20th century nation of iran existed in the 6th century
or course not
(its an assosiation fallacy)

historyfan81,

Since you claim to be a history fan, let’s look at another history fan, John Henry Newman.

AND

No question about it, he did his homework.

In fact he wrote a lot about what he found out. Cutting to the chase, He specifically made the following statement famous while he was still a Protestant investigating why he was who he is and believes what he believed, while noticing all the division and confusion within Protestant Christianity…

Newman found that

"to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant" from: paragraph 5 HERE

To rephrase what he found, to be deep in history is to be Catholic, and that means, in the Catholic Church. If you read his work, you’ll see the work he put into this subject.

And I hope you read from his works at the Newman Reader BTW Newman, is now a saint.

SO

Re: “Roman” Catholic,

for space

see one explanation HERE

There are however, legitimate reasons to use Roman. You aren’t using it that way.

 

[historyfan81]

iam not a protestan by the way , and it was do to my love of history that i stoped being a catholic

since roman catholisim has many historical incostencies and flat out errors in some regards

 

[steve-b]

iam not a protestan by the way ,

Your arguments suggest differently

historyfan81:

and it was do to my love of history that i stoped being a catholic

I’d say you’ve created a complete contradiction of history & reason.

 

[historyfan81]

yeah mate iam not cahtolic , but that doesnt mean iam protestan i heavly deagree with almost every single denomentation

and it was do to my love of history that i stoped being a catholic

i’d say you’ve created a complete contradiction of history & reason

yeah its secularist history and Historical revisionism, both protestants and catholics comit numerous historical fallacies to prove and disprove one another.

example protestans love to claim that constantine invted catholisim wich is false
and catholics claim that other things

 

[steve-b]

yeah mate iam not cahtolic , but that doesnt mean iam protestan i heavly deagree with almost every single denomentation

and it was do to my love of history that i stoped being a catholic

yeah its secularist history

OK,

Prove it. Show your work from history … properly referenced.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

If you ever get bored, read some of these dialogues that Augustine had with fellow clergy. You will come to the quick conclusion that they were treating the Eucharist in the 4th century, the same way we treat it today. With great reverence and adoration…placed in the tabernacle and reserved just as we do today. And when you read these discussions with the Fathers you see that we do have clergy voicing their inaccurate opinions and then being corrected by the Orthodox view point.

The Church has always spoke infallibly through council since ACTS 15. If the matter was not official as of yet, you were allowed to debate the topic. I assure you the RCC and EO’s have always maintained that the Eucharist is Jesus, physically present. You mainly see 2 view points – Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation – both of which is on the other end of the protestant Spectrum and in opposition to a Baptist viewpoint.

 

[steve-b]

If they believe and are baptized, they are in an imperfect communion.

Problem is that increasing numbers have discarded baptism.

AND

That term “imperfect communion” in reality, has huge consequences.

 

[historyfan81]

ok i will gather my old post (mainly youtube)
( i have to sends this in parts , over go the 50 k character mark )

first wierd historical error

did peter found the curch of rome?

we have enough evedince to show that he was most likely there .even though historians Nicola Denzey Lewis like gives arguments that he never went there

but new evidence shows that he most likely did went there even thorugh its not a historical concensus

1. expulsion of the jews…

emperor clauduis who was in office AD 41-54, mention it the incident in the writings of [Roman historians Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122),

Cassius Dio (c. AD 150 – c. 235)

and fifth-century Christian author Paulus Orosius. Scholars generally agree that these references refer to the same incident.

The exact date is uncertain. The maximal time window for the expulsion of Jews from Rome is from January AD 41 until January AD 53. More detailed estimates such as those based on the AD 49 date by Orosius or the reduction of the AD 53 upper limit due to Proconsul health are possible but controversial.

iam giving catholisim every benefit of the doudt so i will use 49 AD, this shows that by 49 AD and prior to it there was a significant chirstnian comunity in the jewish comunity in rome

th3 the first epistle of Peter does mention that “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son” ([1 Peter 5:13] It is not certain whether this refers to the actual Babylon or to Rome, for which Babylon was a common nickname at the time, or to the Jewish diaspora in general, as a recent theory has proposed.

Date of 1 peter?

close and numerous correspondences between 1 Peter and Romans suggests to some scholars that 1 Peter had knowledge of Romans (this is not to say that 1 Peter was literarily dependent on Romans). If these scholars are correct then 1 Peter must have been written after Romans, which was written around AD 56-58 (Elliott 136-137). But it is also possible the similarities reflect early Christian themes in general.

• As noted above, the term “Babylon” in 5:13 is a reference to Rome. Since this usage is only attested in documents written after AD 70, when Rome destroyed Jerusalem like Babylon had in 587 BC, many scholars consider this a strong indication that 1 Peter was written after AD 70. However, the above writings were politically subversive apocalyptic literature while 1 Peter is an epistle containing nothing subversive ([2:13-17] the reference to Babylon forms an inclusio with “disapora” in 1:1 and functions to identify both author and reader as “exiles.” These differences prevent the reference to “Babylon” from requiring a date after Peter’s death.

like i said iam giving catholisim the benefit of the doudt and using the earliest possible date of 60 AD

paul doesnt mention peter in the epistele to the romans , so using this time range we can say peter arrival is post 58 AD and he stays there till his death under emeperor nero

 

[historyfan81]

problems ,assuming using the accepted date of the expulsions of the jews in 49 AD , and that the curch of rome was already established and had already time by paul writtings . and peter shows up after these events.

therefore to respond to some cahtolics claim there are 2 visits to rome ,one in 43 Ad and another in 60

Eusebius of Caesarea 260/265–339/340 relates that when Peter confronts Simon Magus at Judea (mentioned in Acts 8), Simon Magus flees to Rome, where the Romans got to regard him as a god. According to Eusebius, his luck did not last long, since God sent Peter to Rome, and Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed.

According to [Jerome]( (327–420) "Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero.

not only is this mentioned a couple of centuries after the fact which raises some big alarms on its autencity.

it stil has problems , one why is this not mentioned in acts? acts is a the date of acts is depending but even if we use the earliest date possible tha it was not written after 62 AD we have the problems that “that is 19 years after peters first visit”

and there is no mention of it , one would think that is the case.

also no curch father mentions the date of 42 ad or the confronation of magnus. in fac there isnt one beacuse the story comes from an acoprhyfull book called the Acts of Peter written sometime around the half second century.

so did peter found the curch of rome? , no he most likely just took it over.
there is more to uncover iam going to make this a 6 parter on my main historical problems with the catholic curch

my sources

The Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew and Thomas : Pick, Bernhard, 1842-1917 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Open Court Publishing Co., Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., Ltd, Chicago, London 1909.

The Apostle Peter in Rome - Biblical Archaeology Society

The Letters of Paul: An Introduction by Charles B. Puskas (Aug 3, 1993) [ISBN]
page 20 states: “The document of primary importance in determining a chronology of Paul is the Gallio Inscription found at Delphi”

“The Gallio Inscription”](http://www.wfu.edu/~horton/r102/gallio.html). Retrieved 2012-08-19.

 

[steve-b]

ok i will gather my old post (mainly youtube)
( i have to sends this in parts , over go the 50 k character mark )

first wierd historical error

did peter found the curch of rome?

we have enough evedince to show that he was most likely there .even though historians Nicola Denzey Lewis like gives arguments that he never went there

but new evidence shows that he most likely did went there even thorugh its not a historical concensus

1. expulsion of the jews…

[snip for space]

like i said iam giving catholisim the benefit of the doudt and using the earliest possible date of 60 AD

paul doesnt mention peter in the epistele to the romans , so using this time range we can say peter arrival is post 58 AD and he stays there till his death under emeperor nero

When I use dates in this time period, I usually say approx. We know Peter was in Rome, and he wrote from Rome. Dates aren’t exact they are approx. As for Paul not mentioning Peter in his epistle, maybe Peter wasn’t in Rome at the time Paul wrote his epistle.

 

[historyfan81]

yeah forgot that sorry but still , we do know that he was the dates using many historical analysis

if peter was not in rome during paul espitle that mean he was not during the . Early 55 and early 58 both have some support

meaning that the argument of 1 peter being 58 AD to early 60s AD aprox grows higher

so yeah even so the evidence that peter was in rome , not 100% historicaly proven , but its there and its solid

evidence that he founded the curch in rome , few , and most records both ecclesiastical and secular dont support it , as the dates and places dont add up or contradict each other depending on the circumstances

 

[steve-b]

problems ,assuming using the accepted date of the expulsions of the jews in 49 AD , and that the curch of rome was already established and had already time by paul writtings . and peter shows up after these events.

therefore to respond to some cahtolics claim there are 2 visits to rome ,one in 43 Ad and another in 60

Eusebius of Caesarea 260/265–339/340 relates that when Peter confronts Simon Magus at Judea (mentioned in Acts 8), Simon Magus flees to Rome, where the Romans got to regard him as a god. According to Eusebius, his luck did not last long, since God sent Peter to Rome, and Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed.

According to [Jerome]( (327–420) "Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero.

not only is this mentioned a couple of centuries after the fact which raises some big alarms on its autencity.

it stil has problems , one why is this not mentioned in acts? acts is a the date of acts is depending but even if we use the earliest date possible tha it was not written after 62 AD we have the problems that “that is 19 years after peters first visit”

and there is no mention of it , one would think that is the case.

also no curch father mentions the date of 42 ad or the confronation of magnus. in fac there isnt one beacuse the story comes from an acoprhyfull book called the Acts of Peter written sometime around the half second century.

so did peter found the curch of rome? , no he most likely just took it over.
there is more to uncover iam going to make this a 6 parter on my main historical problems with the catholic curch

my sources

The Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew and Thomas : Pick, Bernhard, 1842-1917 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The Open Court Publishing Co., Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., Ltd, Chicago, London 1909.

The Apostle Peter in Rome - Biblical Archaeology Society
The Letters of Paul: An Introduction by Charles B. Puskas (Aug 3, 1993) [ISBN]
page 20 states: “The document of primary importance in determining a chronology of Paul is the Gallio Inscription found at Delphi”

“The Gallio Inscription”](http://www.wfu.edu/~horton/r102/gallio.html). Retrieved 2012-08-19.

I’ll just say,

date(s) for a writing, is a best estimate,. example: HERE

 

[steve-b]

yeah forgot that sorry but still , we do know that he was the dates using many historical analysis

if peter was not in rome during paul espitle that mean he was not during the . Early 55 and early 58 both have some support

meaning that the argument of 1 peter being 58 AD to early 60s AD aprox grows higher

so yeah even so the evidence that peter was in rome , not 100% historicaly proven , but its there and its solid

evidence that he founded the curch in rome , few , and most records both ecclesiastical and secular dont support it , as the dates and places dont add up or contradict each other depending on the circumstances

Paul was traveling all over the empire. He didn’t stay in one place for long. Until of course when he was arrested. The reason Peter wrote under the pseudonym “Babylon”, is to disguise where he was… as you might guess why.

 

[historyfan81]

that is true , i didnt mean that he stayed in rome for 3 years rather the espistle to the romans was written somewhere around 55 to 58 AD

but still like i said sources dont help the catholic position as peter arrives way to late

unless founded means that he founded it on a spiritual level or some other thing , but literal

in the case of the pseudonmy babylon this is an argument of some and actually a lot of secular historians that 1 peter comes after the destruction of jerusalem since the babylonians did it and due to this rome became associeted with babylon as both destroyed the temple

assuming peter created or was the first ones to use it , it still puts the book around the 60s AD aprox

again iam not arguing peter never went to the city, the argument is that he most likely never founded the place and merly took over .

 

[steve-b]

that is true , i didnt mean that he stayed in rome for 3 years rather the espistle to the romans was written somewhere around 55 to 58 AD

but still like i said sources dont help the catholic position as peter arrives way to late

too Late for what?

historyfan81:

unless founded means that he founded it on a spiritual level or some other thing , but literal

No apostle that I’m aware of, wrote down their itinerary with exact dates. Jesus made Peter the head of the Church. Therefore, in another sense, wherever Peter is, there is the Church that he is building…as well.

historyfan81:

in the case of the pseudonmy babylon this is an argument of some and actually a lot of secular historians that 1 peter comes after the destruction of jerusalem since the babylonians did it and due to this rome became associeted with babylon as both destroyed the temple

The destruction of Jerusalem is well recognized as 70 a.d. Well after the date, Peter and Paul are martyred in Rome.

historyfan81:

assuming peter created or was the first ones to use it , it still puts the book around the 60s AD aprox

again iam not arguing peter never went to the city, the argument is that he most likely never founded the place and merly took over .

I’m not arguing that he founded the Church at Rome. I’m arguing he built up the Church of Rome.

AND

He was martyred, crucified upside down, on Vatican Hill, somewhere in the mid 60’s.

 

[historyfan81]

well your one wierd catholic since tradition says that peter founded the curch of rome.

Peter established the church at Rome . or some others that say peter and paul founded the curch of rome

so like i said who is rigth here? catholic tradition or historical analysis that contradict said tradition?

can one change tradition when new evidence contradicts the old tradition?

yeah ill quoted "the argument is that babylon was used for the rome only after the destruction of the second temple wich is true in alot of jewish comunites and therefore and do to other things like writting style it was writen after 70 AD , some push it to emperor Dometian but the concus of now moved to 70s
for the later date