Posted on 05/15/2008 8:29:34 AM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
In the beginning of the church (first ten years) all the believers were Jews. The church began and was established in Jerusalem where Jesus did a good portion of his preaching and was crucified and raised.
The gospel went out from Jerusalem "you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" Acts 1:8
Luke 24:47-48 that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (see Acts 10:36-37)
It wasn’t until years later that the gospel went to the Gentiles Acts 8:1 “At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.”
It was Saul who was given the commission who bought the gospel to the Gentile regions, even Rome., Paul tells his story to Agrippa Acts 26:19-20 "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea , and then to the Gentiles."
The "Jerusalem Council" in Acts 15 shows us a number of things- first, Rome was not headquarters of the Church; Jerusalem was the focus (not the head) because the Jewish leadership had to decide on how to act with the Gentiles being saved in great numbers A serious doctrinal disagreement had arisen with the Gentiles beginning to be saved. Paul was present because he was the main apostle sent out to the gentiles with Barnabas. Then the Apostles and Elders met to consider the matter (15:6). If Peter had any special authority above all the other apostles, he would have called the Council together, officiated at the meeting, and given his final judgment in these matters by himself, but he did not. There was no Pope over the church then. James, who was the pastor of the Jerusalem church stood up and became the central figure in this council, and his appeal was in agreement with the other elders, it was to the Word of God and the Spirit (Acts 15:13-21) not to the church itself.
It was not until the early 300’s the church stopped hiding underground from persecution and became a legal entity that the power was shifted to pagan Rome, specifically under Constantine the conqueror. The Pope became like the Caesars before him in Rome, only now with a Christian veneer. First there was little influence, but the doors slowly swung open to allow the pagans to enter the church through water baptism instead of a confession of faith. The church mixed other teachings not found in the Bible and polluted itself to becoming religious and giving meaning to the outward rituals not understanding their spiritual intent.
My dogs may be interested in what you have in your pants, but not me :-)
I think the Russians invented Rome.
no. Peter was the man Christ left in charge. I can’t read any possible interpretation of what Christ says after Peter confesses his faith.
Peter came to head the Church in Antioch and later the Church in Rome. James ran the Mother Church in Jerusalem,
Oh, it's easy enough to figure out:
1) There are two different words for "rock" employed--Petros, a piece of stone, and petra, a large rock--makes it clear that something other than, "You're the pope, Pete," was in mind.
2) The symbol of the Rock is used dozens of places in the Tanakh (OT) to refer to God and Messiah
3) Peter himself makes no claims to leadership over the Council. His is one of the deciding arguments, not a rendered judgment.
4) Peter himself interprets the Lord's words for us:
1Pe 2:5 - You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Yeshua the Messiah. Because it is contained in Scripture,I.e. Peter is one of the "little stones" which is built on the Rock, Messiah, the Divine Presence made flesh. We read this again in 1Co. 3:11: "For no one can lay any other foundation than that which has been laid, which is Yeshua the Messiah." And as Rev. 21:14 points out, the New Jerusalem is founded on all of the Apostles, not just Peter.“Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, chosen, and precious:For you who believe therefore is the honor, but for those who are disobedient,
He who believes in him will not be disappointed.”“The stone which the builders rejected,and,
has become the chief cornerstone,”“a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.”
Sorry, but there is no other Biblical interpretation than that Yeshua is the Rock which is the cornerstone of the Ekklesia, and Peter is one of the stones built on Him--one of the foundation stones, to be sure, but not the whole foundation himself.
The fact that you admit that Jacob (James) was in charge of the assembly in Jerusalem is just the final nail in the coffin.
In addition, your whole worldview is caught up in the assumption that God would never remove His blessing from Rome for her sins as He did Jerusalem (assuming that He ever set up Rome as "in charge" to begin with, of course). Sorry, but it was in Jerusalem, not Rome, that God put His Name, and it is from Jerusalem, not Rome, that the King will reign forever.
Shalom!
In the 1st and early 2nd century AD, when Rome is the real capital city of the empire, the church, as a body of believers, is focused around the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Note, for example, that Revelation explicitly addresses seven churches, all in Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.
The reforms of Diocletian in the late Third/early Fourth Century AD and the need to be close to the embattled frontiers made Gaul, the Danube, and Asia Minor the important theaters for the autocratic military dictatorship that was the functional Roman government. Rome became a hinterland city: pretty, decadent, full of beautiful buildings and other vestiges of republican and early imperial institutions that had long since lost all real significance in the administration of the empire. When Constantine become emperor, the empire's center of interest and its administrative center was to be consolidated in the east, in Constantinople.
I would really enjoy such a discussion, but I don't think it will happen when you have people who don't go along with what you wrote. And what you wrote is a very good understanding of the early history of the church. Thanks for writing it.
No, no, and still no.
Petra does indeed mean "large rock".
"Petros" is used in a few places in classical Greek poetry to mean stone or pebble. There are no examples of that usage in Koine prose.
Petra has feminine gender. It can't be a man's given name. To make a masculine name out of it, you have to switch it to a masculine declension, hence "Petros".
If you want to see a long list of citations from Protestant exegetes confirming this, here it is.
I read in more than one place the greatest problem with the church was when Constantine made Christianity "acceptable" and opened it up to all sorts of people. It opened the church up to all sorts of people bring in all sorts of ideas. It is one of the reasons the early church fathers realized the need to separate the inspired word of God from the rest of the writings. They recognized the problems and why we have the Bible.
Nobody disputes that Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Church at the time of the council in Acts 15. The claim is a red herring.
This paragraph is just plain nutty:
It was not until the early 300’s the church stopped hiding underground from persecution and became a legal entity that the power was shifted to pagan Rome, specifically under Constantine the conqueror. The Pope became like the Caesars before him in Rome, only now with a Christian veneer. First there was little influence, but the doors slowly swung open to allow the pagans to enter the church through water baptism instead of a confession of faith.
First off, the Church "stopped hiding from persecution" because Caesar stopped persecuting.
Jerusalem ceased to be the "headquarters" of the Church within the lifetimes of the Apostles. (They moved first to Antioch, then to Rome.) Jerusalem was largely destroyed after the wars of AD 70 and AD 135. Jewish Christianity largely apostasized into a heresy known as Ebionitism, which rejected the divinity of Christ.
As early as the late 1st C. you have the bishop of Rome, Clement, issuing commands to the church in Corinth. In the late 2nd century, you have Irenaeus of Lyons writing that the sine qua non of orthodoxy is communion with Rome. In the 3rd century, you have Cyprian of Carthage writing about Peter's successor ruling the Church from Rome.
Nothing much "moved" or "changed" when Constantine came around, except that Rome stopped moving Christians into prison cells and the arena.
As far as "pagans entering the Church through water baptism instead of a confession of faith", the Church at Rome always required both of adults. In fact, the "Apostles Creed" is the ancient Roman baptismal creed.
I’m reading this book - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0736910549 in which the author makes much the same point as you, although he is of the opinion that the Gnostics (2nd & 3rd centuries) caused the church fathers to codify Scripture and separate it from non-scripture. This was recognized as the canon of Scripture “under” Constantine - who may or may not have been a Christian.
You, with your RCC lens, say the article is “rubbish” and offer, in defense of that opinion, unsupported declaratives about what extra-Biblical reports allegedly say to back up the RCC version of history - which I call rubbish.
In fact, part of the reason Constantine legalized Christianity was exactly because it was already so popular.
And there was no shortage of heretics before legalization anymore than after.
The earliest notion of a "Bible" in the Christian world was synonymous with "books that are read in the liturgy". (IOW, "the Bible" and "what is read at Mass" were two ways of saying the same thing.)
However, there wasn't unanimity about which books should be read. People in one place read books that people in other places didn't. That's why the canon was taught authoritatively in the West at the end of the 4th C.
That's an ad hominem argument. If I did that, the RM would immediately chastise me for reading your mind.
Clement's "Epistle to the Corinthians", Irenaeus' "Against Heresies", and Cyprian of Carthage's "On the Unity of the Catholic Church" are all available on the Internet, and are not "unsupported declaratives".
The are as "extra-Biblical" as this article is.
“For a detailed review of the verses you cited, please read this article: http://www.letusreason.org/RC26.htm";
I read the critique. Not moved.
We know Jesus named Simon “cephas” (John 1:42) which is from the Aramaic (”rock”). Thus, this was the original “phonetic” rendering of Simon’s new name, and thus ought to be the basis for understanding Jesus’ purpose the name change. “Petros” is a rendering of a name from the Aramaic (John 1:42)to a Greek rendering. Therefore, the distinction between Petra/Petros, if there really is one, is meaningless. It seems the issue is how to render kepha from Aramaic into a language, while rendering it now a name for a man (thus, the masculine “petros” is chosen).
Second, on the point of the language of Matthew, see the following site (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm) and its comments on the language of Matthew’s gospel.
Cited in part from above: “Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his “Hist. eccl.” (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (”Ad Damasum”, xx; “Ad Hedib.”, iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew....However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.”
In sum, Simon was named “rock”...not “little rock”.
“For a detailed review of the verses you cited, please read this article: http://www.letusreason.org/RC26.htm";
I read the critique. Not moved.
We know Jesus named Simon “cephas” (John 1:42) which is from the Aramaic (”rock”). Thus, this was the original “phonetic” rendering of Simon’s new name, and thus ought to be the basis for understanding Jesus’ purpose the name change. “Petros” is a rendering of a name from the Aramaic (John 1:42)to a Greek rendering. Therefore, the distinction between Petra/Petros, if there really is one, is meaningless. It seems the issue is how to render kepha from Aramaic into a language, while rendering it now a name for a man (thus, the masculine “petros” is chosen).
Second, on the point of the language of Matthew, see the following site (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm) and its comments on the language of Matthew’s gospel.
Cited in part from above: “Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his “Hist. eccl.” (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (”Ad Damasum”, xx; “Ad Hedib.”, iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew....However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.”
In sum, Simon was named “rock”...not “little rock”.
“For a detailed review of the verses you cited, please read this article: http://www.letusreason.org/RC26.htm";
I read the critique. Not moved.
We know Jesus named Simon “cephas” (John 1:42) which is from the Aramaic (”rock”). Thus, this was the original “phonetic” rendering of Simon’s new name, and thus ought to be the basis for understanding Jesus’ purpose the name change. “Petros” is a rendering of a name from the Aramaic (John 1:42)to a Greek rendering. Therefore, the distinction between Petra/Petros, if there really is one, is meaningless. It seems the issue is how to render kepha from Aramaic into a language, while rendering it now a name for a man (thus, the masculine “petros” is chosen).
Second, on the point of the language of Matthew, see the following site (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm) and its comments on the language of Matthew’s gospel.
Cited in part from above: “Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his “Hist. eccl.” (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (”Ad Damasum”, xx; “Ad Hedib.”, iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew....However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.”
In sum, Simon was named “rock”...not “little rock”.
The term “RCC lens” is a personal attack? How so? Every person has a world view, or lens, through which he views everything.
I am not “reading his mind” when I observe that he consistently proclaims the RCC view on issue after issue. I did not claim to know what he thinks, much less use that “knowledge” as an attack on his person.
Your comment does not compute.
Makes sense to me, given the biblical statements and some historical statements that say essentially the same thing. For some it will always be a matter of what they want those statements to say as opposed to what they actually mean.
Honestly, I would have surprised with any other answer.
For me, any doctrine that detracts from the Lord Jesus and puffs up any human in His place (such as in being Head of the church) is wrong - as nowhere in Scripture do we see such teaching explicitly; only pulled out in bits and pieces to become the traditions of this church or that.
Hold to what you will. The Bible tells us that only God is to be fully trusted - no group of men or individual can stand in His place.
As used, the term suggests your correspondent is not objective but biased in a certain way. That is “reading his mind.” It is not a “personal attack” but it is “making it personal.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.