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.
Edit to my own post. It is Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinopile. Not Canon 7.
Regards
The Holy Word of Elohim says that Cephas was Peter's original name, and it also says that Cephas was translated petros/Rock. John 1:42. So "always" isn't quite correct.
And by your answer, it seems that my former point stands. In this passage, Christ gave Simon personally (the Greek is su= "you") several divine attributes: the keys, and the power to loose and bind. It certainly is more in keeping with the rest of the passage if Christ gives him a third divine attribute--the Rock--than if this sentence is just floating out there with little connection to what is all around it:
"Blessed are you, Simon-Bar Jona...you are Pebble, and upon myself the Rock I will build my Church.".
I don't think that fits the context of blessing Peter. I think it's a total stretch.
A couple of quick points:
History shows a reasoned conclusion is the canon was complete in the 2nd century and formally recognized by the councils you mentioned.
The church founded by Christ is not the one based in Rome or the one home-based in Nashville. Both - and all those in between - were founded by men believing they were right in God’s eye. The church founded by Christ is not of this world, not constrained to buildings, denominations, or the rule of man. It is composed of the lively stones - Christians - regardless of where they are located.
I don’t care what old, dead guys said about the RCC - or the SBC. What matters is what has God said about such things. His record does not support the RCC claims that you repeated any more than it supports the SBC claims of some that John the Baptist was their first pastor.
The Holy Word of Elohim says that Cephas was Peter's original name, and it also says that Cephas was translated petros/Rock. John 1:42. So "always" isn't quite correct.
And by your answer, it seems that my former point stands. In this passage, Christ gave Simon personally (the Greek is su= "you") several divine attributes: the keys, and the power to loose and bind. It certainly is more in keeping with the rest of the passage if Christ gives him a third divine attribute--the Rock--than if this sentence is just floating out there with little connection to what is all around it:
"Blessed are you, Simon-Bar Jona...you are Pebble, and upon myself the Rock I will build my Church.".
I don't think that fits the context of blessing Peter. I think it's a total stretch.
62 posted on May 15, 2008 2:52:50 PM MDT by Claud
also used in 1 CO 1:12, 1 CO 3:22, 1 CO 9:5, 1 CO 15:5 Gal 2:9, Gal 2:11 & Gal 2:14 Let's read the text in the NASBu and the Douay-Rheims.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
NAsbU John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas " (which is translated Peter).
Cephas GSN-3739
DRA John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.
Yes, that would have worked.
THNXIt is all about pronouns.
So, Manfred, old dog, please answer this one question...do the practices and beliefs of the earliest Christians more closely resemble those of the Catholic Church or those that appeared 1500 years later??? You should read a biography of St. John Newman to see what a reasoned approach to history does for one s’ belief system....
And what did God say, did he tell you something that he hasn’t told the rest of humanity. God revealed himself in the person of Christ Jesus when he (Christ) became incarnate. So Christ is the eternal Word of the Father. Christ revealed God and the truths of the Gospel (and the Gospel is Christ himself) to the Apostles, which is the CHurch, his Body. So how Christ continued to reveal the Fathers Love was through the Holy Spirit acting through the Church, which is the Body of Christ and the pillar and foundation of Truth (c.f. 1 Tim 3:15).
So as the Apostles died and the early Church faced the various Gnostic Heresies, Henry Chadwhich, The Anglican Patristic and Church History Scholar, points out that the Church Ministry and the Bible were the two weapons used to defeat the Gnostics such as Marcion. In response to the question where could the 2nd century Church find reliable evidence of what the Apostles taught, Chadwick points out that St. Ignatius of Antioch used the authority of the local Bishop, without whom the life giving sacraments could not be administered. He also notes that a more permanent justification of ministerial authority came from the Church of Rome. Chadwick cites 1 Clement and St. Irenaeus to make his point about apostolic succession being the important source to defeat the Gnostic sects.
Chadwick writes (The Early Church, Revised Edition 1993 p. 42)
“Against any heretical claim to possess secret traditions of what Jesus had told the apostles in the forty days after the resurrection, there was a clear argument that the apostles Peter and Paul could not have failed to impart such doctrines to those whom they had set over the Churches, and that by the line of accredited teachers in those Churches of apostolic foundation no such heretical notions had been transmitted. The succession argument carried the implication that the teaching given by the contemporary bishop of say, Rome or Antioch was in all respects identical with that of the apostles. This was important, for two reasons. In the first place, the faithful were thereby in some sense assured that revelation was not only knowable by a retrospective historical knowledge derived from either the apostles occasional writings or anecdotal gossip, but had in the bishops contemporary authority, able and authorized to speak God’s word in the present. In the second place, it enabled defenders of orthodoxy, especially Irenaeus of Lyons, to oppose the proliferating Gnostic sects, none of which agreed with one another and all of which were continually modifying their views, the concept of the monolithic church, universally extended in space and with unbroken continuity in time, unanimous in its possession of an immutable revelation”
The authority of the Church would thus become important in formulating the Canon. Again, Chadwick writes (p. 42)
“ The second weapon of the orthodox defense was the gradual formation of the New Testament canon. In the first century, the Christian Bible had simply been the Old Testament (read in the Septuagint version). Authority resided in this scripture and in oral traditions, as in apparent in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians.”
Chadwick notes that oral tradition was viewed as an authority that had not yet been merged into a written document (i.e. the Scripture). However, he notes that the Maricion and other Gnostic controversies provided an impetus for the Church to recognize which written documents contained authentic apostolic tradition. Thus, Justin Martyr, who died circa 155 AD provided an orthodox Church father who attested to MT, MK, and LK. These gospels seemed to be recognized much earlier than John, which was met with resistance. It wasn’t until Irena us (185 AD) that John became recognized . Chadwick points out that “strict application of apostolic authority” by the Church of Rome led to the exclusion of the book of Hebrews., which would not be admitted until the 4th century. Chadwick cites the Muratorian fragment, written in 200 AD as the first canonical list of the early Church, which was published by the Church of Rome. The Muratorian fragment lists 23 of the 27 books in the NT (1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, James are not listed). In addition, he lists the Revelation of John, but states it should not be read in Church.
So your second century statement about the canon is based on the writings of St. Justin Marytr (who believed in a Eucharist, Liturgy, and Baptismal regeneration), St. Ireanaues (orthodox Catholic througout, and strong supporter of the Primacy of the Roman CHurch) and the canonical list put together by the Church of Rome at the end of the 2nd century (i.e. the Muratorian Fragment).
Thanks for allowing me provide evidence as to how the Holy Spirit worked through the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” during the 2nd century.
Regards
Peter was never the head of the church at Antioch. Peter's commission was simple. [Matthew 10:5-6] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [Galatians 2:7-8] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:
Here are two very definitive scriptures showing the commission of the Apostle Peter. Paul was commissioned....basically to everyone....[Acts 9:15] circumcised..... as well as non circumcised. Peter never set foot in Rome and scripture shows him elsewhere.....always evangelizing the Israelites.
The only time scripture shows Peter in Antioch was when he was being chewed out by Paul! [Galatians 2:11] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. If you read further (verse 12) you'll see that Peter was frightened of those sent from James in Jerusalem. This is hardly the profile of a "Man in charge"!
How then do you justify [Matthew 10:5-6] or [Galatians 2:11]????
Peter was not sent to evangelize Cornelius....he was sent by the Holy Spirit to show that Gentiles were also included in God's plan of salvation. Cornelius was already a man of God [Acts 10:2]. Paul....at the time....was sorting things out in Arabia [Galatians 1:17] or the task would have fallen to him. This is about 6 years after the resurrection and this concept (salvation for all) was not greeted warmly by some [Acts 11:1-2].
The Philip who did the evangelizing of the eunuch [Acts 8:26-29] was not the Apostle Philip.....who along with Peter had been directed to the circumcised [Matthew 10:5-6]....but the evangelist Philip [Acts 6:1-6]. Notice that this Philip goes to Samaria [Acts 8:5], cannot call up the Holy Spirit [Acts 8:16], and Peter and John have go to Samaria at the direction of the Jerusalem Church. This was in direct violation of Our Lord's command in [Matthew 10:5-6]. This caused the heresy and false doctrines of Simon Magus to enter the stage of history.
[Acts 22:2-3] (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
The Gospels show that before Jesus ascended, He told the apostles to take His Word to the gentiles and to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Then.....if that's the case.....why do we see so much astonishment from the Apostles and disciples when it does happen?
Acts 10:44-45] While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
And downright indignant behavior as well?????
[Acts 11:1-3] And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
You have preconceived notions about what I’ve read and project your RCC views onto me. Teflon here - no stick. As a friend of mine on this forum puts, the rubberized history of the RCC is laughable.
It’s vain to discuss ancient history with an RC, I’m quite content to let all who wish to believe the lies of Rome do so in piece. Ya’ll can read what I post, but I will respond to very few queries from RCs.
I’ve read a bit of ancient history. One thing I’m sure of - the RCC has its version of history to support its agenda and the RCC disparages authors of historical accounts that do not do so.
I ain’t gonna put any more RCC spin into my brain.
Well Manfred, that is very nice of you to post these articles for us “poor ignorant Catholics to read”. If you want people to just read it, just put it as a Protestant Caucaus Thread. If you want to make it an open forum, then why do you not respond to posts which are responses to your post, and you were the original guy who started the thread. IMO, that just doesn’t seem right.
And as for “lies about Rome”, Henry Chadwick, who I cited, taught at Cambridge University and is one of the most respected Patristic Scholars of the last 50 years. For the record, he is a member of the Church of England, and not a Catholic in Full Communion with the Bishop of Rome. Sorry, but the evidence is looking at you whether you want to admit it or not.
The canons from the Council of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinopile (381 AD) clearly talk about a Primacy of the Roman Church. THere are many Protestant sources, ones that are willing to investigate the Early CHurch and Councils, that have the Councils and writings of the CHurch Fathers. SO, if you are implying that the source that I used (newadvent.org) is lying, or that I am lying, then I encourage you to go to a Protestant source and see for yourself what St. Clemenent, St. Iraenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, the Canons of the COuncil of Nicea and Constantinopile said.
Cheers
I don’t know what you are trying to prove, but it seems to me that you are very good at scripture twisting.
Matthew Ch. 28, Verse 18-20
18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. edit
19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: edit
20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen
Why don’t you share who those authors are? The Church Fathers and there writings are there to read, and they don’t support your theories “at all”. The best Patristic Scholarship and Early CHurch History done by non-Catholics includes Henry Chadwhick (Anglican), who I cited, J.N.D. Kelly (Anglican), who I did not cite and Jaroslave Pelikan (Lutheran Patristic Scholar) when he wrote his 5 volume set on CHurch History, later converted to the Eastern Orthodox CHurch.
All of these Scholars works, who are not Catholic, document evidence that is consistent and supports what I wrote. You have yet to produce anyone, who has studied the Church in the first 400 years, who says otherwise, and you can’t becaus there are none.
Regards
True, James was the settled leader in Jerusalem. The Apostles were traveling missionaries. James and others maintained that Gentiles had to be circumcised and charged to keep the Law of Moses before they could be Christians. Paul and Barnabas disagreed with that doctrine. The church at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to discuss this issue with the Apostles and Elders. Peter spoke first, in favor of not requiring Gentile converts to become Jews. Next, Barnabas and Paul described the results of their work among Gentiles. Finally, James expressed his judgment, which was a compromise that yielded on the main points, and so it was James who had the last word and decided the issue.
[Matthew 28:19-20] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The Greek word for nations can also mean "Tribe".1484. ethnos (eth'-nos)a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan)
Now....knowing this, let's go back and re-read [Matthew 10:5-6] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. These "Twelve" would not include Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Luke etc. etc. They would subsequently be called to evangelize the Gentiles.
Let's also read [Matthew 15:24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Now....why do you suppose Our Lord would make that statement? Maybe.....because that's what He meant?
[John 21:15-17] So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
So now we know that He sends the original twelve to the Israelites (House of Israel) [Matthew 10:5-6]. He reiterates the commission by saying that is to whom He was sent (Lost sheep) [Matthew 15:24]. He also says they are to go to the "Tribes" [Matthew 28:19-20]. And He reinforces that commission by telling them to "Feed his sheep" [John 21:15-17].
Maybe this explains why the whole idea of evangelizing the Gentiles seems so abhorrent to everyone in [Acts 10:45][Acts 11:1-3]! The fact is.....without an explanation you are left wondering why it took Peter so long in getting around to the Gentiles (6 to 7 years after the resurrection) and also wondering why everyone is so upset with the idea.....to boot!
You call this scripture twisting? Maybe a closer look at what Our Lord is really saying is in order for some.
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.