How Tsunami Waves Did Not Touch Santhome Cathedral

I am sorry if you feel I am trying to bash your religion.

That is certainly not my purpose. As I tried to state in my posts I truly believe God will bless you as he does all his children. In fact I believe that you will find heaven to be far greater than you ever imagined and I believe that you will go there.

I am just trying to open your eyes to the possibility that there is far more to achieve in the next life than your church teaches.

I also apologize for some members in my church that previously taught terrible things about your church and others. They were very wrong and this in not our teaching. Nor was it ever. Unfortunately it took a long time for the main incorrect book (Mormon Doctrine) to be ruled such by our Prophet as the man that wrote it was his friend.

I agree. Denominations are only relevant when more than one branch of the Church springs up. Jesus created one Church to be governed by Peter and the apostles. The Catholic Church is that church.

There is nothing in the Bible that teaches this.

It is obvious, the ROCK Jesus spoke of is HIMSELF, not Peter.

There have been too many threads on this,.

This was not the teachings in the 40's. Once again proof that the Pope is very fallible.

Once again you show your ignorance. You clearly do not understand the concept of infallibility as it is used in Catholicism. The pope is deemed infallible only when he says he is speaking infallibly. No pope to my knowledge has mabe any infallible pronouncement on the issue of babies who die without sin. Popes and other theologians may speculate as to concepts like "Limbo." This speculation does not rise to the level of an infallible pronouncement.

He created a Church with a Prophet or Apostle to receive Revelations from him.

The other concept you speak about is unique to Mormanism, i.e. the idea that God continues to provide revelation to his prophet. Without this concept your entire religion would fall on its face since it is based on subsequent revelation given to a guy named Smith.

Most Christians, including Catholics, believe that God's revelation is complete. Catholics believe it is composed of Scripture and the oral teachings of the Apostles(sacred tradition). Once the last Apostle,John, died the body of revelation was closed.

I see no reason to believe that an angel named Moroni decided to give additional information to John Smith a thousand plus years after the death of Christ. I believe South Park said it best,(humming) 'dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb."

It is obvious, the ROCK Jesus spoke of is HIMSELF, not Peter. There have been too many threads on this,.

There have been alot of threads on this subject and the Catholics and the Anti-Catholics continue to disagree. It is not obvious that the rock Jesus was speaking of was himself. In fact Jesus refers to Peter, "you", seven times in about 5 lines. And yet according to you, he stopped in midstream and said "you, you ,you, me, you, you, you." We can go round and round on this one but we apparently will never agree.

Somebody else may point this out, but Paul was not an Apostle.

An early convert, and a very effective proponent of the early Church to the Gentiles, but not an Apostle. (In fact, tradition maintains he held the cloaks of those Jews who stoned the first converts.)

Somebody else may point this out, but Paul was not an Apostle

"Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God." Romans 1:1.

Paul was an apostle. He just recieved his calling in a different manner than the other apostles.

See also Galatians 2:11 - 24.

Beautiful. The "Doubter" surely was not one.

I am sorry if you feel I am trying to bash your religion.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining jerkoff.

Why did Jesus name Peter rock (Petros)?

I wasn't especially trying to make a counter point to what you were saying -- Though I admit it counters some of what you said and others upstream in the thread.

The first point was the word tradition is an insert in that and some other verses -- this was a study on a particular word in the greek not a word study on tradition becasue then we would have had to have looked up some other things.

The second part that I added was to point out that Chirst had a lot of negative things to say about traditions of men and the arguement that has been posed by others not particularly you that the church can at will make up its own traditions is somewhat suspect and needs to be more closely examined.

Point to ponder the pharisees these men of numerous traditions were asked if the Baptism of John was of God or men -- from the context one might say they were blinded by their traditions.

Calling the old testament a collection of traditions -- would seem to make it a lot less than the word of God

It would imply that it was made by the will of men, it was a series of stories or legends from men

In a recent article form Evagelicals posted on FR their own theologians admit such a view of the Old Testament THey used the words myth and mythical and implied that the bible particularly Genesis was made up and may have had some long lost basis in historical fact.

This point of view goes well with with the word traditions. When I was a Lutheran we were told early christians were pagans that they were savages that were involved in strange rituals and practices we were told that thrrough mans rationalization and the traditions of that church that improved upon the old testament and new testament until christianity had become one of the great religions of the world.

Some of these same people privately say God is an invention of God -- he is the last relic of mans supersticious past.

See the problem is that these things are somewhat intertwined.

My understanding is fairly simple Adam and Eve go and eat of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Eve this is original sin. It is a corrupting knowledge. So science is the use of the knowedge of God and evil -- it is a corrupting force

We have what God has spoken and men develope theology and all sorts of other ologies using simple observation and their knowledge of Good and Evil -- Jesus flags them on it and calls it all corruption -- he says becasue they have corrupted all that they had in God he will take it away and give it to another.

The Church begins and for a few hundred years things are good but then men are born that no longer personally knew christ or the apostles and they feel that by virtue of their having sat in a pulpit for a few decades that they can tweek the work of God -- and so by the same process of outward observation and using their knowledge of Good and evil they set forth their own new traditions and edicts. How are they different than waht the pharisees did? Jesus said the pharisees sat in the seat of Moses -- tracing that back in scripture that meant they werejudges of Israel and more importatnly the law giver

How is it that if they gave out laws that made up themselves would cChrist have blasted them for it?

It is because they redefined lawgiver from one who reads and proclaims the law of God into the lawmaker.

So when we speak of traditions is that really the term that God said in the bible or is it like the word in the word study that our trusty translators inserted.

It is not about what feels right to me -- corruption and sin ussual feel real God. If we are beleivers we are required to search these things out for ourselves we must ask critical questions as to what we bleive and why we believe it. If I believe in Christ because Bob beleives in Christ I am not promised salvation. If I believe in christ because Bob beleives and he offers to pray for me and offers me some sacraments I am not promised salvation in the bible. If I chose to beleive Bob over the Bible Bob had beeter be pretty powerful if I expect him to persuade God not to toss me into hell and gain me admittance to a place were are told that the Apostles and Prophets have gained admitance. Most people put their faith in Bob or the Denomination that Bob gets paid all the big bucks from.

I lost Faith in Bob when I was a Lutheran, I've met Bob in many Churches and have seen many a Christian Beleive in Bob, Get Baptised into bob and sit under the teaching of Bob Pay their tithes and offerings to Bob But you see Bob is a hireling and Bob has no powers in this life of the next.

See I read that Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life not Bob. Jesus said I am the Door and no one goes to the father but by me. Now Bob is going to have to do some serious demonstration here if I am to accept that he is the door. I want to see in Bob the verse that says these signs shall follow them that belive (Signs wonders healing deleiverance maybe even God speaking saying this is my Bob in whom I am well pleased hear ye him.) But if Bob tells me he is the brother of a father of a sister of a man who knew a polish shoemaker that does little for me especially when Bob wants me to follow some tradtions he made his friends (even really old friends) made up in place of the word of God.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, THAT THOU ART PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

That is pretty clear especially since he changed Simon's name to "Rock". Now I am open to listen to why that is not true - really. What does that verse mean?

ping

You've done a great job shedding light on the "the tsunami is God's punishment for evil doers" fringe. Could shed some some light on this "glurge" as well?

Good read but use the spell checker. It is quick and easy and on a long post like that it is worth the effort. I can't type two sentences without an error.

Yes it is obvious, and I will take the time to show you.

First off, Most Catholics never read the section before or after this part:

(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

That is one reason some people do not find it obvious.

Here is what it says::

(Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

(Mat 16:17 KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

What was the original topic of discussion?

(Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Jesus asked,

That was the topic of discussion.

What was the response?

(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

They were all over the place, it seems that there was not many who were catching on to exactly who Jesus was.

So, what was the next sentence?

(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Jesus asked the disciples themselves what THEY thought, not just one disciple, but ALL of them.

Peter gave the best answer, that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Right from there, many people ignore what was just said, and only concentrate on what comes next.

However, that is where the error lies, in ignoring what was just said.

It is like explaining to someone that people put sodas in the soda machine first, then act surprised when soda comes out of the machine when you put money into it. People forget what happened first: someone loaded the machine.

In the same respect, Jesus set the tone for the conversation: WHO IS HE?

Peter had it right: Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

That was the point of what Jesus was saying. That He was the Christ.

That was what He just said!

We all know what comes next, and it is because people ignore what was just said, that they get this part wrong::

(Mat 16:17 KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus explains that Peter's revelation did not come from His logic, it came from God the Father Himself. This type of instruction was done on a spiritual level, not fleshly, it was something that Peter would have never figured out for himself.

What did Jesus say next? Peter is blessed because he was BLESSED with this information.

What information?

That Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

That is the point.

What Jesus said next is the most misused verse in the entire New Testament.

(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter and Rock. Is Peter the rock spoken of here, or is the IMPORTANT POINT THAT GOD REVEALED TO PETER the rock?

17 And [ 2532] Jesus [2424] answered [ 611] (5679) and said [ 2036] (5627) unto him [846], Blessed [ 3107] art thou [ 1488] (5748), Simon [ 4613] Barjona [ 920]: for [ 3754] flesh [ 4561] and [ 2532] blood [ 129] hath [ 601] [0] not [3756] revealed [601] (5656) it unto thee [4671], but [ 235] my [ 3450] Father [ 3962] which [ 3588] is in [ 1722] heaven [ 3772].

18 And [ 1161] I say [ 3004] (5719) also [ 2504] unto thee [ 4671], That [ 3754] thou [ 4771] art [ 1488] (5748) Peter [ 4074], and [ 2532] upon [ 1909] this [ 5026] rock [ 4073] I will build [ 3618] (5692) my [ 3450] church [ 1577]; and [ 2532] the gates [ 4439] of hell [ 86] shall [ 2729] [0] not [ 3756] prevail against [ 2729] (5692) it [ 846].

18 kagw [ 2504] de [ 1161] soi [ 4671] legw [ 3004] (5719) oti [ 3754] su [ 4771] ei [ 1488] (5748) petroj [ 4074] kai [ 2532] epi [ 1909] tauth [ 3778] th [ 3588] petra [ 4073] oikodomhsw [ 3618] (5692) mou [ 3450] thn [ 3588] ekklhsian [ 1577] kai [ 2532] pulai [ 4439] adou [ 86] ou [ 3756] katiscusousin [ 2729] (5692) authj [ 846]

Peter =
4074 petroj Petros pet'-ros
apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m
AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162
Peter = "a rock or a stone"
1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus

rock =
4073 petra petra pet'-ra
from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f
AV - rock 16; 16
1) a rock, cliff or ledge
1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
1b) a rock, a large stone
1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

Due to what Jesus was talking about, the ROCK had to be the truth Pete had revealed to him from God the Father, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

There is no other sensible explanation of the verse unless it is twisted to make someone believe what is not there in the text.

Too many people form what they believe around their doctrine, and then interpret the Bible in the light of that doctrine.

That is wrong. Doctrine should come from what the Bible clearly says, and then base their doctrine on what it clearly says!

The Bible nowhere grants Peter any authority that is not also given to the other disciples.

Jesus is also called the ROCK or CORNER STONE in many other verses, but PETER IS NOT!

Notice what is said in this passage::

(Mat 7:24 KJV) Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

(Mat 7:25 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

(Mat 7:26 KJV) And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

(Mat 7:27 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

What is it that a person built their house upon and survived? A ROCK.

If a person is foolish, what does a person build their house upon? SAND. What did Jesus say that those who rejected his words built upon? SAND.

If the foolish reject Jesus and build upon SAND, then those who BELIEVE and RECEIVE what Jesus said, which of the two men is Jesus comparing them to, the SAND builder or the ROCK builder?

It is CLEAR that Jesus is referring to those who BELIEVE on HIM and trust HIM as one who builds their house UPON A ROCK.

That is JESUS own words several chapters before Peter's declaration.

This is repeated in more detail in Luke::
(Luke 6:47 KJV) Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:

(Luke 6:48 KJV) He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

(Luke 6:49 KJV) But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Note again, the PERSON who believes on the WORD OF GOD, is likened to someone building their house UPON A ROCK.

So, what is the reference to A ROCK in ALL these cases?

Is it a MAN or is it the WORD OF GOD revealed?

This is not difficult to read, but too many people have been taught to interpret the passage in Matthew in such a way to twist what is actually being said, and these alternate passages repeat the same basic message: THAT GOD is what matters, not men or a single man.

Paul wrote in Romans 9::
(Rom 9:33 KJV) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Who is Paul speaking of when he SAYS A ROCK of offense? A Stumbling stone? It is Jesus, and refers to those who refuse to believe.

(1 Cor 10:4 KJV) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Who is the ROCK?
It plainly says the ROCK WAS JESUS, not Peter.

There is no other place where Peter is praised or given any authority, in fact Peter is rebuked for his actions by other persons.

(Gal 2:11 KJV) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

(Gal 2:12 KJV) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

(Gal 2:13 KJV) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

(Gal 2:14 KJV) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

If PETER is the ROCK of the Church, then WHO IS PAUL to REBUKE PETER?

Paul clearly rebuked Peter in this passage because PETER was WRONG and at FAULT!

The ROCK of the Church CANNOT HAVE ANY FAULT, or else there is NO FOUNDATION to stand upon but error!!

Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter, also. While the book of Acts clearly tells Peter to witness to a Gentile first, Peter is NOWHERE granted any position or title that PETER is the Apostle to the Gentiles, but PAUL clearly IS named as SUCH!

(Rom 15:15 KJV) Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,

(Rom 15:16 KJV) That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

The Book of Galatians is the clearest refutation to many false doctrines concerning this::

(Gal 2:1 KJV) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

(Gal 2:2 KJV) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Now, read the next passage carefully:: WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY??

(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

THE GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION WAS GIVEN TO PAUL, NOT PETER.

PETER WAS TO BE THE APOSTLE TO THE JEWS.

(Eph 3:1 KJV) For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

WHO WAS? PAUL was, not Peter.

(Eph 3:8 KJV) Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

WHO WAS?? Paul was!!

(1 Tim 2:7 KJV) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

WHO IS A TEACHER OF THE GENTILES?

Paul is! NOT Peter, evey time Peter is mentioned as to WHAT PEOPLE Peter is to be associated with it is the JEWS, WITH ONLY ONE EXCEPTION, and that is Acts chapter 10.

Only ONCE, while PAUL is repeatedly and openly called or referred to as the Apostle of the Gentiles.

In fact, there might even be more references to PAUL witnessing to Jews then there are references to PETER witnessing to Gentiles! And this from the man who is KNOWN as THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES!

(Acts 9:19 KJV) And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
(Acts 9:20 KJV) And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
(Acts 9:21 KJV) But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
(Acts 9:22 KJV) But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

Acts 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. 2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 17:(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

(Acts 18:4 KJV) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

(Acts 18:5 KJV) And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

(Acts 20:21 KJV) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

(2 Tim 1:11 KJV) Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

(2 Tim 4:17 KJV) Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

Strengthened who? PETER?? NO!
Paul!

The doctrines of Peter being the ROCK are clearly not supported by Scripture.

That cannot be denied by anyone who knows how to read for themselves.

(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

(Acts 17:11 KJV) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

(Acts 17:12 KJV) Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

see #174 for an explanation, please. :)

Calling the old testament a collection of traditions -- would seem to make it a lot less than the word of God

It would imply that it was made by the will of men, it was a series of stories or legends from men

This is the nub of the argument. Because of my upbringing ,since I was about 12 when I heard the word "tradition" I have thought "giving over". (I was brought up Protestant, but in my secular school we studied Latin at an early age.) Then I got a little Greek in college so now I think "paradosis" as well. There's nothing about the word "tradition" as such which makes me think good or bad. Some traditions are good, some are stupid, some are downright dangerous. That's how I react to the word.

To me, if something originates with God, and if the act of "handing it over" is guided by the Spirit, then it is a clearly a good tradition, but not less a tradition. I believe Saint Paul uses the word paradosis, often with such a meaning. And my Analytical Concordance of the KJV says where the word tradition shows up in the NT, it's paradosis in the Greek.

And that origin and process of handing down pretty much describes the Bible, as far as I can see. God guided some of His elect in writing the words, and others in copying and preserving them and recognizing that they were special and especially precious. God guided the Church in its recognition of which writings belonged in the collection we call the Bible, and guided the church, again, in copying, preserving, and handing down. So the Bible seems to me to be a tradition of the Church. Heck, my first Bible was "handed over" to me by a clergyman. In every way the Bible came to me as a tradition.

I think there are people who will interpret the Bible as they want, whether or not it is understood as a tradition. They will fail to see the uniqueness of this particular tradition.

By the way, you write: The Church begins and for a few hundred years things are good,... but it seems to me that right from the beginning the Church includes people who do good and bad. Look at what Paul writes about Cephas in Galations! About PETER! But still, the same group gathers in Council and says at the end of the conference,"It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit....".

I am familiar with the idea that the church started out well and has gone downhill for some time. But it seems to me that the Biblical witness is that it didn't start out so well. That, to me, calls the rest of the account, and the theology and ecclesiology built on it, into question.

It's largely because of what I read in Scripture that I finally became a Catholic. Go figger.

FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS

http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/fox101.htm

CHAPTER I

History of Christian Martyrs to the First General Persecutions

Under Nero
Christ our Savior, in the Gospel of St. Matthew, hearing the confession of Simon Peter, who, first of all other, openly acknowledged Him to be the Son of God, and perceiving the secret hand of His Father therein, called him (alluding to his name) a rock, upon which rock He would build His Church so strong that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. In which words three things are to be noted: First, that Christ will have a Church in this world. Secondly, that the same Church should mightily be impugned, not only by the world, but also by the uttermost strength and powers of all hell. And, thirdly, that the same Church, notwithstanding the uttermost of the devil and all his malice, should continue.

Which prophecy of Christ we see wonderfully to be verified, insomuch that the whole course of the Church to this day may seem nothing else but a verifying of the said prophecy. First, that Christ hath set up a Church, needeth no declaration. Secondly, what force of princes, kings, monarchs, governors, and rulers of this world, with their subjects, publicly and privately, with all their strength and cunning, have bent themselves against this Church! And, thirdly, how the said Church, all this notwithstanding, hath yet endured and holden its own! What storms and tempests it hath overpast, wondrous it is to behold: for the more evident declaration whereof, I have addressed this present history, to the end, first, that the wonderful works of God in His Church might appear to His glory; also that, the continuance and proceedings of the Church, from time to time, being set forth, more knowledge and experience may redound thereby, to the profit of the reader and edification of Christian faith.

As it is not our business to enlarge upon our Savior's history, either before or after His crucifixion, we shall only find it necessary to remind our readers of the discomfiture of the Jews by His subsequent resurrection. Although one apostle had betrayed Him; although another had denied Him, under the solemn sanction of an oath; and although the rest had forsaken Him, unless we may except "the disciple who was known unto the high-priest"; the history of His resurrection gave a new direction to all their hearts, and, after the mission of the Holy Spirit, imparted new confidence to their minds. The powers with which they were endued emboldened them to proclaim His name, to the confusion of the Jewish rulers, and the astonishment of Gentile proselytes.

I. St. Stephen
St. Stephen suffered the next in order. His death was occasioned by the faithful manner in which he preached the Gospel to the betrayers and murderers of Christ. To such a degree of madness were they excited, that they cast him out of the city and stoned him to death. The time when he suffered is generally supposed to have been at the passover which succeeded to that of our Lord's crucifixion, and to the era of his ascension, in the following spring.
Upon this a great persecution was raised against all who professed their belief in Christ as the Messiah, or as a prophet. We are immediately told by St. Luke, that "there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem;" and that "they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles."

About two thousand Christians, with Nicanor, one of the seven deacons, suffered martyrdom during the "persecution that arose about Stephen."

II. James the Great
The next martyr we meet with, according to St. Luke, in the History of the Apsotles' Acts, was James the son of Zebedee, the elder brother of John, and a relative of our Lord; for his mother Salome was cousin-german to the Virgin Mary. It was not until ten years after the death of Stephen that the second martyrdom took place; for no sooner had Herod Agrippa been appointed governor of Judea, than, with a view to ingratiate himself with them, he raised a sharp persecution against the Christians, and determined to make an effectual blow, by striking at their leaders. The account given us by an eminent primitive writer, Clemens Alexandrinus, ought not to be overlooked; that, as James was led to the place of martyrdom, his accuser was brought to repent of his conduct by the apostle's extraordinary courage and undauntedness, and fell down at his feet to request his pardon, professing himself a Christian, and resolving that James should not receive the crown of martyrdom alone. Hence they were both beheaded at the same time. Thus did the first apostolic martyr cheerfully and resolutely receive that cup, which he had told our Savior he was ready to drink. Timon and Parmenas suffered martyrdom about the same time; the one at Philippi, and the other in Macedonia. These events took place A.D. 44.

III. Philip
Was born at Bethsaida, in Galilee and was first called by the name of "disciple." He labored diligently in Upper Asia, and suffered martyrdom at Heliopolis, in Phrygia. He was scourged, thrown into prison, and afterwards crucified, A.D. 54.

IV. Matthew
Whose occupation was that of a toll-gatherer, was born at Nazareth. He wrote his gospel in Hebrew, which was afterwards translated into Greek by James the Less. The scene of his labors was Parthia, and Ethiopia, in which latter country he suffered martyrdom, being slain with a halberd in the city of Nadabah, A.D. 60.
V. James the Less
Is supposed by some to have been the brother of our Lord, by a former wife of Joseph. This is very doubtful, and accords too much with the Catholic superstition, that Mary never had any other children except our Savior. He was elected to the oversight of the churches of Jerusalem; and was the author of the Epistle ascribed to James in the sacred canon. At the age of ninety-four he was beat and stoned by the Jews; and finally had his brains dashed out with a fuller's club.

VI. Matthias
Of whom less is known than of most of the other disciples, was elected to fill the vacant place of Judas. He was stoned at Jerusalem and then beheaded.

VII. Andrew
Was the brother of Peter. He preached the gospel to many Asiatic nations; but on his arrival at Edessa he was taken and crucified on a cross, the two ends of which were fixed transversely in the ground. Hence the derivation of the term, St. Andrew's Cross.

VIII. St. Mark
Was born of Jewish parents of the tribe of Levi. He is supposed to have been converted to Christianity by Peter, whom he served as an amanuensis, and under whose inspection he wrote his Gospel in the Greek language. Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria, at the great solemnity of Serapis their idol, ending his life under their merciless hands.

IX. Peter
Among many other saints, the blessed apostle Peter was condemned to death, and crucified, as some do write, at Rome; albeit some others, and not without cause, do doubt thereof. Hegesippus saith that Nero sought matter against Peter to put him to death; which, when the people perceived, they entreated Peter with much ado that he would fly the city. Peter, through their importunity at length persuaded, prepared himself to avoid. But, coming to the gate, he saw the Lord Christ come to meet him, to whom he, worshipping, said, "Lord, whither dost Thou go?" To whom He answered and said, "I am come again to be crucified." By this, Peter, perceiving his suffering to be understood, returned into the city. Jerome saith that he was crucified, his head being down and his feet upward, himself so requiring, because he was (he said) unworthy to be crucified after the same form and manner as the Lord was.

X. Paul
Paul, the apostle, who before was called Saul, after his great travail and unspeakable labors in promoting the Gospel of Christ, suffered also in this first persecution under Nero. Abdias, declareth that under his execution Nero sent two of his esquires, Ferega and Parthemius, to bring him word of his death. They, coming to Paul instructing the people, desired him to pray for them, that they might believe; who told them that shortly after they should believe and be baptised at His sepulcher. This done, the soldiers came and led him out of the city to the place of execution, where he, after his prayers made, gave his neck to the sword.

XI. Jude
The brother of James, was commonly called Thaddeus. He was crucified at Edessa, A.D. 72.

XII. Bartholomew
Preached in several countries, and having translated the Gospel of Matthew into the language of India, he propagated it in that country. He was at length cruelly beaten and then crucified by the impatient idolaters.

XIII. Thomas
Called Didymus, preached the Gospel in Parthia and India, where exciting the rage of the pagan priests, he was martyred by being thrust through with a spear.
XIV. Luke
The evangelist, was the author of the Gospel which goes under his name. He travelled with Paul through various countries, and is supposed to have been hanged on an olive tree, by the idolatrous priests of Greece.

XV. Simon
Surnamed Zelotes, preached the Gospel in Mauritania, Africa, and even in Britain, in which latter country he was crucified, A.D. 74.

XVI. John
The "beloved disciple," was brother to James the Great. The churches of Smyrna, Pergamos, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, and Thyatira, were founded by him. From Ephesus he was ordered to be sent to Rome, where it is affirmed he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by miracle, without injury. Domitian afterwards banished him to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation. Nerva, the successor of Domitian, recalled him. He was the only apostle who escaped a violent death.
XVII. Barnabas
Was of Cyprus, but of Jewish descent, his death is supposed to have taken place about A.D. 73.

And yet, notwithstanding all these continual persecutions and horrible punishments, the Church daily increased, deeply rooted in the doctrine of the apostles and of men apostolical, and watered plentously with the blood of saints.

Chapter II
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/fox102.htm

Back to Index of the Book
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/index.html

I need to remind myself. I keep thinking the posts are good (spelling wise) but when I re-read I see way too many errors.

From post: "Otherwise, all people would end up as believers and that's not the way it plays out. "

? Too much peace on Earth, in other words - ^^^^

Gosh, does that mean the second coming will be less than said -

just sitting here wondering -

Welcome to FReerepublic!

Do you plan on staying?