Reply With Quote
In conclusion, I'm not bright enough to comprehend the rules of Christianity.
This is from an essay,
(Again the author refutes Catholic doctrine, but that doesn't mean that he is anti-Catholic... one attaches rebuke to the ins utionized doctrines while the other implies that hate is being held for Catholics themselves... which is not the case...)
Lets follow Roman Papal lineage more closely. To propagate that this Roman papal authority is holding Peter’s keys to the kingdom they had to get Peter to be a pope in Rome. That was a formidable task which they pursued by misrepresenting history and rewriting it where necessary. They even exploited secret code word fictions like “Babylon” being Peter’s supposed secret code word for Rome. Peter wrote from Babylon, not Rome. The arguments against Peter’s residence in Rome have been quantified by Michael Grant in his historical biography “Saint Peter” (Grant was a nonbeliever, neither Roman Catholic nor a Baptized Bible Believing Baptist) as follows:
1) Paul’s Letter to the Galatians indicates that Peter’s activities took place at Jerusalem. There is also a mention of a visit to Antioch, with Gentile Christians, and even induced Paul’s companion Barnabas to adopt a similar procedure. But nothing is said here about Rome.
2) Paul’s Letter to the Romans is addressed to the Christians at Rome. In the whole of this address, however, there is no mention of Peter at all, which seems strange if he was indeed in Rome, and even stranger if he was indeed a Pope at Rome.
3) One of the principal purposes of Acts is to ins ute a comparison between Peter and Paul: whereas Galatians shows them in conflict and confrontation, Acts deliberately displays unanimity. Since the book terminates with Paul preaching in Rome, it is surely to be expected that its author would mention that Peter had preceded him there, or was his companion there, if any such tradition existed. But there is no mention of any such thing.
4) The Epistle I Clement (96 AD), which purports to have been written by Clement of Rome, on behalf of the church of that city, to the church of Corinth, records Peter’s noble past, but has nothing whatever to say about his having been at Rome. Moreover, the aim of the entire passage is to compare him with Paul, and draw a parallel between them. In these cir stances, it is possible to deduce that no tradition of Peter’s residence or martyrdom at Rome was known to the writer of the Letter.
5) When writing of later date do make reference to the martyrdom of Peter, they fail to indicate where this took place. If it had taken place at Rome, one would expect this to be specified.
6) In support of the opposite argument it has been supposed that when Ignatius, who died in about 110 AD, said to the Romans, ‘I did not request you, as Peter and Paul did’, he was implying that Peter as well as Paul, had preached to their community in the city. However, Justin Martyr, when he was writing in about the middle of the second century, does not make any mention of Peter having been there. About the activities of Simon Magus in the city he has a good deal to say. But on Simon’s supposed confrontation with Peter in Rome, which is the theme of so many later stories, Justin remains entirely silent.
7) The earliest evidence for Peter’s alleged residence in Rome that can be dated with any degree of accuracy comes from Dionysius of Corinth. It was during the bishopric of Soter (166-74 AD) that Dionysius wrote to the church of Rome, expressing gra ude to its members for their financial assistance. Part of the Letter has been reproduced by Eusebius. In this, Dionysisus observes that it is right and proper that the churches of Rome and Corinth should operate in unison, since they had both been founded jointly by Peter and Paul (and this, in the case of Rome, was echoed by Irenaeus.) However, this mention of the role of Peter does not readily invite acceptance. For one thing, what Dionysius stated about Corinth was not true. That is to say, he had seriously distorted the history of his own church. And, since he had been so inaccurate about the church he knew so well, there is no reason to believe what he said about Rome either. Moreover, there are positive reasons for disbelieving what he wrote on the subject. For one thing, his ascription to Paul of a joint role in the foundation of the Roman Church does not seem to be correct. On the contrary, Paul observed in Romans that he had never met the Christians in Rome, in the foundation of whose Church, therefore, he cannot have played a part. So why believe the statement about Peter either, which goes far beyond anything said by Ignatius or Justin?
8) Later on, it became customary to report, without any justification , that Peter had resided at Rome for twenty-five years, and to declare that he had been not merely the joint founder but the sole founder of its Church, so that the alleged participation of Paul in its establishment was gradually expunged from the record.
In order to propagate it’s single episcopal, monarchical personage doctrine and to build and hold onto a forged papal authority the Roman Church needed to twist, contort and add to history. It had to expunge the true founder of the Church at Rome, the Lord Jesus Christ, and fabricate a continuous succession of authority, attached to Peter. They misread Scripture to fashion Peter as the human founder of the Church, they misread history to propagate their error.
Baptist Doctrine follows verbatim Biblical Doctrine. That individual Churches, (i.e. bodies of believers, called out baptized believers,) were organized into local Churches where only regenerated baptized believers were admitted into membership. These local Churches, whose founder was the Lord Jesus Christ, had but one human overseer in an office called bishop (Grk. Bishop = Overseer), who was an ordained elder (Grk Presbyter = elder, mature one), who was to do the task of a shepherd (Grk. Pastor.) A Roman Catholic will be kept form this explanation and guarded in the teaching that Peter founded the Church of Rome and passed on an apostolic authority wherein the Popes all retained infallible connection to God, even if they initiate mariology or indulgences, baptismal regeneration or immaculate conception.
The contention between Rome and Baptist has always been centered on authority. Roman Imperial Monarchical Church always wielded the sword of Government, (until 1776 Praise the Lord.) The Baptist (not always called by that name but always separatist) wielded only the two edged sword of the Word of God. We are still only armed with that powerful sword and reliant only on the Spirit of God that indwells all regenerated believers today.
In conclusion, I'm not bright enough to comprehend the rules of Christianity.
I just have one problem with your statement GON, that is that you should've left it at "I'm not bright enough".
I have a few questions for you, hegamboa...for a church that follows "verbatim Biblical doctrine"...
1. Find me the words "personal Savior" in the Bible.
2. Explain why the clear words of Jesus at the Last Supper are not being followed.
3. Explain why Jesus' words concerning Baptism to Nicodemus are not followed.
4. Explain what happens when your personal Bible interpretation conflicts with your neighbor's.
I'll come up with some more later.
Last edited by travis2; 01-26-2006 at 07:57 AM.
Neither have we Catholics. Nor have we understood why our detractors have to make things up when they attack us.
This refutes the article above.
Was Peter in Rome?
Like other Protestants, Fundamentalists say Christ never appointed Peter as the earthly head for the simple reason that the Church has no earthly head and was never meant to have one. Christ is the Church’s only foundation, in any possible sense of that term.
The papacy, they say, arose out of fifth- or sixth-century politics, both secular and ecclesiastical; it has no connection with the New Testament. It has not been established by Christ, even though supposed “successors” to Peter (and their defenders) claim it was. At best the papacy is a ruse; at worst, a work of the devil. In any case, it is an ins ution designed to give the Catholic Church an authority it doesn’t have.
A key premise of their argument is the assertion that Peter was never in Rome. It follows that if Peter were never in Rome, he could not have been Rome’s first bishop and so could not have had any successors in that office. How can Catholics talk about the divine origin of the papacy, Fundamentalists argue, when their claim about Peter’s whereabouts is wrong?
Let’s look at this last charge, reserving for another tract a look at Peter’s position among the apostles and in the early Church.
How to Understand the Argument
At first glance, it might seem that the question, of whether Peter went to Rome and died there, is inconsequential. And in a way it is. After all, his being in Rome would not itself prove the existence of the papacy. In fact, it would be a false inference to say he must have been the first pope since he was in Rome and later popes ruled from Rome. With that logic, Paul would have been the first pope, too, since he was an apostle and went to Rome.
On the other hand, if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome.
So, if the apostle got there only much later, that might have something to say about who his legitimate successors would be (and it does, since the man elected bishop of Rome is automatically the new pope on the notion that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and the pope is merely Peter’s successor), but it would say nothing about the status of the papal office. It would not establish that the papacy was ins uted by Christ in the first place.
No, somehow the question, while interesting historically, doesn’t seem to be crucial to the real issue, whether the papacy was founded by Christ. Still, most anti-Catholic organizations take up the matter and go to considerable trouble to “prove” Peter could not have been in Rome. Why? Because they think they can get mileage out of it.
“Here’s a point on which we can point to the lies of Catholic claims,” they say. “Catholics trace the papacy to Peter, and they say he was martyred in Rome after heading the Church there. If we could show he never went to Rome, that would undermine—psychologically if not logically—their assertion that Peter was the first pope. If people conclude the Catholic Church is wrong on this historical point, they’ll conclude it’s wrong on the larger one, the supposed existence of the papacy.” Such is the reasoning of some leading anti-Catholics.
The Charges in Brief
The case is stated perhaps most succinctly, even if not so bluntly, by Loraine Boettner in his best-known book, Roman Catholicism (117): “The remarkable thing, however, about Peter’s alleged bishopric in Rome is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. The word Rome occurs only nine times in the Bible [actually, ten times in the Old Testament and ten times in the New], and never is Peter mentioned in connection with it. There is no allusion to Rome in either of his epistles. Paul’s journey to the city is recorded in great detail (Acts 27 and 28). There is in fact no New Testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind, that Peter ever was in Rome. All rests on legend.”
Well, what about it? Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. Just as the New Testament never says, “Peter then went to Rome,” it never says, “Peter did not go to Rome.” In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to the apostles, Peter included, in later years. Boettner is wrong to dismiss these early historical do ents as conveyors of mere “legend.” They are genuine historical evidence, as every professional historian recognizes.
What the Bible Says
Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”
Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).
These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).
In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.
Early Christian Testimony
William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal—and very early—position (one hesitates to use the word “tradition,” since some people read that as “legend”) was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.
A Very Early Reference
Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.
In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.
In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”
Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”
These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens’ books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peter’s Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their ulative testimony carries enormous weight.
What Archaeology Proved
There is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome, but Boettner, like other Fundamentalist apologists, must dismiss it, claiming that “exhaustive research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin” (118).
Boettner saw Roman Catholicism through the presses in 1962. His original book and the revisions to it since then have failed to mention the results of the excavations under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, excavations that had been underway for decades, but which were undertaken in earnest after World War II. What Boettner casually dismissed as “some bones of uncertain origin” were the contents of a tomb on Vatican Hill that was covered with early inscriptions attesting to the fact that Peter’s remains were inside.
After the original release of Boettner’s book, evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.
You trust in the Pope and his bishops then.... I will admit however, that I can not get myself to trust the writings addressed by the article. Even the Catholic Church chose not include these writings in early Biblical canons (on the grounds that they were not divinely inspired). How then can they base their claims on Peter's whereabouts from these same sources???
As for the bones.... well... frankly, they could be anyones. No forensic analysis will be able to prove or disprove the claim.
I choose to elevate my praise, burdens, and prayers directly to GOD. The veil that was torn from top to bottom in the Jewish temple after JESUS died (which was about 7" thick), symbolizes our direct access to GOD by way of JESUS' atoning sacrifice. WE DON'T REQUIRE HUMAN MEDIATORS BEFORE GOD WHEN OUR 'LAWYER' IS JESUS HIMSELF.
Through the sin of one, death entered our world. Through the Righteousness of another, Life was once again restored.
Last edited by hegamboa; 01-26-2006 at 10:40 AM.
Hector ], I will comment on your article. Please take time to read my comments. Unfortunately, the are long.
No. This is incorrect. The fact that Peter went to Rome and died there does not prove the legitimacy of the Papacy. As we discussed already, it was Christ who installed the Papacy (Mt 16:18). It is there in the Bible, in black and white. I posted a long explanation with plenty of historical and Biblical evidence (not my explanation but Karl keating’s). You actually have not yet refuted the arguments of that post.
Not sure what the author means with “rewriting it where necessary”. Is he implying the Church forged all those early second century writings? Again, the old deceiving Catholic Church?
Babylon is mentioned six times in Revelations (Rev 14:18; 16:19; 17:5, 18:2; 18:10; and 18:21) and in all six times it talks about Babylon falling or Babylon about to fall or the hour of judgment coming upon Babylon. If Babylon was really the capital of the Babylonian empire, these quotes make no sense given that when Revelations was written, that Babylon had been reduced to an insignificant city after years of military defeat. It was no longer “a great city” (Rev 16:19 starts with “The great city broken in three pieces . . . to Babylon, the great city”. (this I borrowed from the article travis posted)
This is a weak argument. So simply because Paul’s letter to the Galatians makes no reference to Peter going to Rome proves the point?
What if Peter was not in Rome at the time Paul wrote this letter? Again, simply because Paul does not mention it does not mean it did not happen. What if Paul’s letter was written before Peter ever went to Rome?.
Again the argument “because it is not in the Bible it cannot possibly be true”. If Acts is supposed to be an all-encompassing account of Peter and Paul’s life, why no mention to Paul’s imprisonment and martyrdom in Rome?
Clement’s letter can be interpreted differently than what the author of the essay you posted is saying, therefore making the connection between Peter and Paul and the fact they both died in Rome.
Another curious thing is how the author shows disdain for the letter itself, doubting if it is legitimate or not. This letter was read in the early Church as scripture on Sundays and, when the Bible was put together in the Fourth Century, bishops of the time debated long and hard in order to determine if such a letter was inspired or not.
So?
So? Just because Justin makes no reference to Peter being in Rome, but four other first and second century writers, including Ignatius in 110 AD, do, is enough to proclaim these four writers (Clement, Ignatius, Dionysius and Iraneaus) are wrong, with regards to Peter being with Rome, and Justin, who simply does not mention this fact, is enough evidence to state he indeed was never in Rome? Weak argument.
I cannot comment on Dionysius writings because I have not read them. What is false in this 7th point is stating that his testament is not the earliest. Both Clement in 96 AD, but more conclusively Ignatius in 110 AD, attest to Peter’s stay in Rome.
False. The vast majority of Catholic writers have never said that Peter stayed in Rome for 5 years. What some Church historians say is that Peter pontificate lasted 25 years from about 33 AD to approximately 58 AD, year when they say Peter was martyred (nevertheless, the most agreed upon date for Peter’s death is 67 AD).
Again, this is simply not true.
“Monarchical personage doctrine”? Is he trying to imply the Catholic Church is run like a monarchy and the Pope is its king? This is the kind of bashing that makes the article less and less credible. This statement could not be farther from the truth.
“forged Papal authority”? Peter being or not being in Rome at some point in his life is not the reason for the Papacy. It is simply more evidence but it is inconsequential.
Oh boy! Every Catholic knows that Christ is the founder of the Church, not only of Rome, but every Christian Church in the face of this Earth. Again, the author loses credibility with this type of statements.
Again, balony.
No, no, no. The primacy of Rome is evident in many early Christian writings. Setting aside the issue if Peter went to Rome or not, let me just give you an example. St Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, went to Rome to discuss with Pope Victor I the controversy between some Churches, especially those in the East, regarding the manner of observe Easter.
This guy has Pope Infallibility all mixed up.
Sure, the Roman Catholic Church is only political. There is nothing spiritual in it. Another poorly drafted paragraph that lends little credibility to the author of the article and the article itself.
It's all perspective.... Even if I were to concede that Peter did end up in Rome and that he helped guide the early church. Like you said it is really inconsequential... That, however, would not mean the Revelation of GOD would be exclusively interpreted by any sort of human lineage.... And we shall agree to disagree on the interpretation of Mt. 16:18.
What I'm trying to say... is that if you place your trust in men... you do so at your own risk. But then you say, "they've been given the Revelation of GOD" to that I say... the HOLY SPIRIT gives that same Revelation to any person that genuinely seeks it. Again, we all have direct access to GOD. And no amount of earthly manipulation can take that away from me...
We are all priests... since we have the 'keys' to unbind others from the bondage of sin by sharing the Gospel. But we are not the ones to take the glory, because it is the work of the HOLY SPIRIT.
That argument goes both ways... which is why we must seek to understand the perspective of other doctrines...
Seeking understanding is all I want as well. And I'm happy to assist with the Catholic side of that.
Unfortunately the wording of SA210's post didn't seem to me to fall into that category...
I'm sorry, but there was nothing wrong with my wording. Mary as intercessor is a tradition, not from the Bible. We've been through this, yes I know you say it's like asking a friend to pray for you.
Hagamboa is right, respectfully, there is a difference, we are praying To God when doing that, not Mary or for her intercession. Not the same.
There is something wrong with your wording. You said "tradition over the Bible". That is a completely false statement. You are spreading a lie.
Period.
Why? Do you believe them to be forgeries? Do you believe them to be inaccurate?
This is a flawed way of thinking. The Church not declaring that those letters where divinely inspired (something you correctly pointed out) does not totally discredit them.
Those letters, such as the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp, were written by people who new the Apostles. The Epistle of Clement (95 AD) was probably written at the same time, if not earlier, than the Gospel according to John.
What I don’t understand is how Fundamentalists only believe what’s in the Bible but discredit the ins ution that compiled that same Bible. The Bible is the Catholic Church’s book. She put it together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and she preserved it through the years in its churches and monasteries until the Reformers decided to do away with part of it because it did not suit their new theology.
If that's what you want to call it. Respectfully, Now, you don't say Tradition over Bible of course, but much of what the religion practices, IS against what the Bible teaches us. So, it does make sense the point I was making, that's what's really going on. You don't have to say the words Tradition over Bible, because I know you probably believe that it's not.
Only the practices are, Not that you teach someone that, and I know you don't, but what the "practices" of the religion are that go against Bible teachings. I'm happy we all are worshipping God, but I disagree on how. I'll just choose to worship and pray to God directly, in Jesus' name as the Bible specifically teaches us to do.
Once again...the Church practices nothing against the Bible.
You state these things as though they are established facts. They are not.
How can you not have an ultimate arbitrator when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Look at what happens when you let individuals interpret the Bible. 20,000 different interpretations. Does the Holy Spirit give these 20,000 denominations a different explanation of what is true?
Christ established the Church and gave the power to his representative(s) on Earth to spread the Good News and continue with His evangelical work. It’s only natural that the Popes and the bishops (in short, the Catholic Church) has the authority to interpret the Bible when doubts among its flock arises. This is the way it has been since Christ was crucified. The Reformers are not the first to try to reinterpret the Bible and adopt new doctrines (the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Montanists, the Manicheans, the Arians, the Donatists, the Nestorians and many others came many centuries before them) and they won’t be the last.
I have no problem in agreeing to disagree. I have to say though that I posted an extensive article on the Catholic explanation of Mt 16:18 and most of the points raised in the article have not been addressed by you. On the other hand, you posted an extensive article on Peter and his historical whereabouts, and my rebuttal to that article was very detailed, almost refuting point by point.
Hector, believe me when I say that I have read many books on Fundamentalist beliefs and their origins. I’m also very interested in how the Reform happened and its historical roots. I try to understand many of the different doctrines they (Protestants) profess but I always fall back to the Catholic way of interpreting the Bible, because it makes so much sense to me.
For example: travis and I have asked you many times on the concept of Sola Scriptura and how Fundamentalists make it the cornerstone of their belief, while this concept is not found in the Bible. In fact, the Bible expressly says it has not recorded all of Jesus doings and teachings.
Lets through out there as many lies as we can, at the end of the day, some of those lies will begin to sound like truths.
Give us examples of Catholic practices that go against Bible teachings.
And by the way, aren’t you the one who does not believe in the Trinity?
Truth is,... the early church of pentecost was no Notre Damesque steepled church with Mary worship, and veneration of the saints. There was no pope, and if peter was the first pope, then the apostle paul was guilty of getting on to peter for discriminating against gentiles and being unchristian like.
IF peter was the pope, then paul would of never questioned Peter. ANd last time I checked there was no need to confess to clergy in the early church.
What the early church practiced pre 60 AD was enough. Paul warned of false angels coming and preaching a different gospel than what was already presented. ANd the NT was simple on the gospel. ALL it took was to confirm that Jesus was your saviour and he rose on the last day.
We don't worship Mary either. For the thousandth time.
Wrong...and right. Nobody said Peter was personally perfect.
Wrong...and wrong. "Receive the Holy Spirit. Who's sins you forgive, they are forgiven. Who's sins you hold bound, they are held bound."
He was warning of the Gnostics, for the most part. And you have no Biblical reference for your last statement.
The writings don't coherently agree with what is written in the rest of the New Testament. This analysis was carried out by the church a long time ago and found that the works were 'lacking in inspired' revelation. I'm going to say something here which might anger you... but only if you take criticisms of Roman Catholic leaders as a personal attack on your faith... which like I've said before, despite your noted disagreement, should not be intertwined....
The Catholic Church as ins uted by the 1st elected Pope (Pope Gregory I in 605 A.D.) claimed the legacy of the early church for itself. That is why declaring that a contemporary of JESUS, in this case Peter, was the founder of the ins ution was crucial to their cause of having existed from the beginning and laying a stake on a piece of history that did not belong the Roman Catholic Ins ution as it is founded today. To make the claim that the inception of the church belongs to them is what angers many protestants.... why? Because we are the church... and life and forgiveness are granted to us by our Heavenly Father not by any earthly representative. The church exists and perseveres because of GOD's grace... not because we as humans somehow 'managed' to preserve it...
The early church which compiled the Gospels, Paul's Letters, John's Letters, and Peter's Letters did so, you are correct, with the guidance and discernment of the HOLY SPIRIT. And those books complete the Bible we now use...
As for the other books, we did not take the Apocrypha out of the Bible. The Apocrypha was added to the Canon in 1546 by the Council of Trent as specific response to the Reformation. Explain how Divine infallibility would have had several Papal successors not include the Apocrypha to then suddenly decide that they were wrong and that the books should be included?? If the Jews did not, and still do not, consider the Apocryphal writings to be a part of the Hebrew Canon why else would the RCC decide to add these writings to the Bible... and 1500 years after the Revelation of JESUS???
And I am not misunderstanding the 'infallibility' concept. The RCC claims their doctrines are "free of error" because they were given by GOD. Could all the earlier popes be given an incomplete doctrine and then suddendly say... "you know... these other books were also intended to be part of the Canon." Don't even bother to look up justifying support for the Apocrypha... Fact of the matter is that they are irrelevant to the Revelation of JESUS Christ.
Don't get me wrong... the existence of these books, in and of itself, is not necessarily wrong. Though they are uninspired, they do contain much truth derived from the true Word of God, just as might a commentary or a devotional book. The apocryphal books may make for good reading, provided that they (like everything else) are examined and judged in the light of the true scriptures. But they do not belong in the canon of the scriptures, and it is clear from the testimony of history that the Jews never considered them scripture, and neither did the true church of God. The fact that the writings of the Apostles, are devoid of quotations from apocryphal books, is proof enough that they are irrelevant to the New Covenant in Christ.
However, Rome has invested a good deal of theological capital in maintaining that these books are inspired scripture. Claiming them as such allows Rome to bolster its profession to be the "mother of the Bible", because it "fixed the canon". Further, there are several major pillars of Roman Catholic Tradition which rest upon an apocryphal foundation, and which would be completely baseless if the apocryphal books were rendered unusable from a doctrinal standpoint.
seeing as how God created fish too, anything is possible.
where in the bible does it describe baptism as sprinling water on the head ?
guys religion is simple.
it's a PERSONAL THING. if you want to fellowship with others, go for it. if you want to read the book alone. Good.
but do not hate on Christianity because of the mistakes and mis-steps that MAN has made. Man is guilty. Man is not perfect.
Jesus is. Just like his Father. Look to them, for they have all the answers.
Man has answers mixed with lies. Do not turn away from the truth just cuz their is a cloud in front of it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions