Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: BlueDragon
If that's the so-called answer -- then why does trhe preponderance of historical evidence so strongly suggest differently

Post 2435 shows that the historical evidence, recorded in the Bible, goes back to the Davidic kingdom.

2,455 posted on 10/19/2014 9:08:33 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2444 | View Replies ]


To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
The Davidic Kingdom?

Yeah, Ive seen that apologetic "story" cropping up, here of late. I'll deal with that later, perhaps.

But when I was talking about history, I meant the history of the Christian Church.

Why is it -- that if papacy was instituted by Christ --- the first centuries of churchmen knew of no such thing?

There is a big gap in years there. Like -- about as many years (or more) than the United States has been in existence.

Don't try to explain it all away...for there is no sufficient explanation for it, or else we would have all heard of it by now.

What I'm sensing here is that much of the FRoman crowing as all about trying to keep the troops in line, an ongoing effort to either provide excuses, or else discredit critics of certain and particular claims peculiar to the Church of Rome (A.K.A,, the Roman Catholic Church).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

But like trying to qualify "Mary" as Queen of Heaven by dragging out cherry-picked verses concerning "queen mother" concerning one of king David's wives...this stretching towards David for his kingship to be ---- now, not Christ's own -- and a better kingdom "not of this world" as Christ spoke of His own Kingdom...to place that now onto the Apostle Peter's shoulders as proof or evidence for 'authority' to be singular province of the bishop of Rome, is a whole bunch of problematic stretching.

How come no one noticed any of that junk (to be applied as you would have it) in the first centuries of the Church?

Where they all idiots -- or were the Early Church Fathers, potentially flawed in some ways or another as individuals -- still close enough to the original teachings to have known full enough of such an idea as Rome eventually came to boast for itself -- to not been portion of the original charter?

They knew better then, then (most of) Rome does now.

Most anyone would be perfectly safe in betting their own sweet bippy on that.

2,462 posted on 10/19/2014 10:22:25 AM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2455 | View Replies ]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
2435 shows that the historical evidence, recorded in the Bible, goes back to the Davidic kingdom. Bible, goes back to the Davidic kingdom.

Post #1463 shows that the historical evidence, recorded by the Church in Rome, goes against the current teaching of the Church in Rome.


Our FR Catholics don't care.

2,532 posted on 10/19/2014 5:56:06 PM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2455 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson