Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
Would you put the writings of Eusebius in the 4th century on the same level as the Scriptures of the 1st century? Was Eusebius ever wrong? What are his 1st century sources for his statements or is a lot of it hearsay and myth?
Show me the part of your Bible [that I am missing] that lists Peter as the first Pope of Rome?
Read Galatians Chapter 2, Verses 7 thru 9: Paul says that from their council in Jerusalem [about 50 AD] forward he and Barnabas concentrated on the uncircumcision [Gentiles], while Peter [Cephas], James, and John [the 3 pillars of the Jewish Church] decided to concentrate on the circumcision [the Jews].
And by that time there were very few Jews left in Rome as Emperor Claudius [41-54AD] had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome as recorded in Acts 18:2. The Roman Church was Paul's ministry not Peter's. Paul was the authority for the Roman Church, not Peter.
Pope: may all Christians recognize true meaning of Peter’s primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
Pope St. Leo the Great and the Petrine Primacy
The Epiphany of the Roman Primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH [Ratzinger]
*************
Very interesting. This article is really a gem, a wealth of information.
I don't know that I'd call it information...More like propaganda...
'Jerusalem has never been in Rome nor will it ever be...
When Jesus shows up again, he will show up in Jerusalem - Israel, not Rome...
"But this passage is more about division of labor rather than the legitimacy of preaching to the Gentiles."
------ Wouldn't one labor where one's calling and authority was? Wasn't Paul specifically chosen by the Resurrected Jesus to take the Gospel to the Gentiles? He had a mission specifically given to him by the Resurrected Jesus to go to the Gentiles. Peter did not. He labored where his authority was --- among the Jews.
Who said that He will appear in Rome?
Don't apologize for us...Luther's bible was created from the 'Majority Texts', something your church avoided...
Luther took the 'lock' off the scriptures and made them available to the world...Without Luther, you wouldn't have a bible to read in a language you could understand...
Yes! The Bible that you and I both cherish, was compiled by the Catholic Church. First off, is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible.
Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?" No. The Bible Itself states that their are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are supposed to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have "heard" this saying, not read it from any Gospel or "Scripture," thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.
Did the early Christians have the Bible as we know it? No. The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus I). So how were the early Christians saved if they did not possess the entire written "Word of God" to follow His teachings? Well, naturally, they were the Body of Christ and were taught through "oral" teachings by the Church, not by writings.
Is the Bible to be taken literally - "word for word?" No. The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook."
So, yes, the historical record for Peter in Rome comes from extra canonical sources.
"The Roman Church was Paul's ministry not Peter's. Paul was the authority for the Roman Church, not Peter."
______________________________
Welcome to Free Republic! Wonderful informative posts.
During this period isn't it misleading to assume a "chief" leader, or "super" Apostle. Individual churches were not set up on a hierarchal command authority. They were much more congregational in structure. In part this explains why Paul had to correct so many problems, such as the Agape Feast and Communion being abused by the wealthier members in the Corinthian Church and in the Thessalonian Church dealing with the "Christ hustlers" who were taking advantage of the generosity of the church.
The better question is: Which books of the Old Testament did the Apostles accept as Scripture? Did they accept the 46 books as in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible or the 39 books as in the King James version?
The Septuagint was accepted among the Hellenistic sect of Judaism (of which St. Paul was a member) and this canon did indeed include the same Old Testament books as the present-day Catholic Bible. In addition, the entire New Testament was written in Greek (Hellenist) with the exception of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which was written in Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ). Over 85% of the quotes from the Old Testament that are used in the New Testament are from the Septuagint.
The Palestinian Old Testament canon was not compiled until between 70-90 A.D. and then, it was done so by the non-Christian Jews in violent reaction to early Judeo-Christianity. The Palestinian canon was the one chosen by Martin Luther based on the acceptance of it by the 16th century German-Jewish community of Luther's time. This canon excludes the seven books that were accepted by the Apostles as Scripture. Why was the canon of the Protestant Old Testament decided by Jews and not Christians? In addition, why did Luther attempt to eliminate the Book of St. James and the Book of Revelation? Is it because the first contradicted his dogma of "faith alone" as opposed to grace, faith and works "combined?" And the second book proving the Catholic Church's stance on nothing "impure" entering into Heaven therefore "necessitating" purgation ?
(On a personal note, I have to run some errands but will be back to this thread later)
************
I will assume from the above that you're not Catholic. Please explain why you believe it is good manners to visit the thread of another religion and insult it. Is that what your religion teaches you?
It's hard to get you people to admit this but every now and again, one of you do...
If you can't take the bible as word for word truth, what do you have??? You have nothing more than a novel...
If it's not ALL right, then probably none of it is right...But yet you guys and your church constantly quote scripture like you believe it...
So some time ago, some people invented a church...And they take bits and pieces from the bible to justify it...And they fill in the gaps with their own creation and call it tradition...
*************
Enough of the whining and insults.
"The Bible that you and I both cherish, was compiled by the Catholic Church."
----- wasn't Diocletian burning Bibles during his reign? Wasn't Diocletian before the founding of Catholic Church?
Didn't Ignatius and Ireneas have Bibles? The Scriptures are quoted throughout the writings of the patriarchs from the 2nd century. They clearly had them.
The Scriptures were in the hands of the true Church from its beginning, starting with those Jesus read in the Temple, and then adding the Gospels and Epistles as they were written and circulated --- you know that.
Two reasons:
This is a public forum...This is not a 'caucus' thread...
And secondly, I don't care about any religion...We're talking about influencing the souls of sinners and I believe your church's teaching will lead folks to Hell...
Sorry to be so blunt...I have nothing at all against Catholics personally...
I see the connection between the Catholic church, the muzlim religion and some of the other Eastern religions as well as pre-Christian pagan worship...This connection is Mary, the Queen of Heaven...It is leading to an ecumenical, one-world religious movement...We can see the recent Popes moving in this directions as well...
With your church relying on 'tradition', as the major factor in it's existance, that makes your pope a modern day prophet...I believe the pope, whether this one or the next, is the 'false phrophet' the bible talks about...
"If you can't take the bible as word for word truth, what do you have??? You have nothing more than a novel..."
______________________________
Amen!
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.