Quix:
Ok, but you clearly stated that the Church of Rome [i.e. the Vatican] started in 300 AD. That by definition is an historical statement that you should be able to verify with evidence.
I provided evidence that contradicts your statement that the Church of Rome [i.e. the Vatican] started in 300 AD and then you responded with a statement about rubberish history.
The writings of the Church Fathers that I cited are recognized as authentic by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox as well as the Great Anglican Patristic Scholars of the 19th and early 20th century Century [e.g, J.D. Lightfoot] and the Lutheran-Reformed Patristic Scholars in Germany [i.e. Harnack, Theodore Zahn, who while a liberal theologian, is recognized as one of the greatest patristic scholars and church historians of the late 19th and early 20th century] from the same time period.
The evidence for St. Peter and Paul being in Rome is cleary part of the Ignatian corpus written in 107 AD. ST. Clement of Rome, written circa 95 AD cleary shows the Church of ROme writing a letter correcting the potential schism about to happen at the Church of Corinth and talks about the Apostles appointing men to take their place.
Marcion, the first named heretic in the early Church was excommunicated by the Church of Rome in 144AD unilaterally as he was pushing Gnostic doctrine and wanted the Bishop of Rome to reject the OT and recognize ST. Luke’s Gospel as the only one for the canon and only a select few of St. Paul’s epistles.
St. Irenaues of Lyon 175 AD also clearly states of Peter and Paul being in Rome and because of the connection to those 2 Apostles, the Church of Rome has a Primacy and other CHurches should be in agreement with her.
Cleary Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea speaks of an ancient custom whereby the Church of Rome has a primacy and thus that custom, also ancient, is one that gives the Church in Alexandria a primacy in her territory to handle disputes and thus that also should be given to the Bishop of the Church in Antioch.
So if the Canons of the Council of Nicea in 325 speak of ancient customs about a primacy of the Church of Rome, one would think that that custom of the Primacy of the Church of Rome predates your 300 AD date whereby the CHurch of Rome [i.e the Vatican] apparently magically came into being.
So again, you made an historical statement regarding the Church of Rome starting in 300AD. I have responded with evidence that contradicts your “historical statement” and thus can you provide some evidence that supports your “historical statement” and “claim that the Church of Rome [i.e. the Vatican] started in 300AD.
Proddys have dealt with such issues a number of times hereon.
If some of my cohorts with to reply, they are welcome.
I have no interest in going over that again at this time.
However, perhaps this bloke re globalism etc will give you some interesting food for thought . . . I’m still watching . . . I’d rather not believe him.
However, I have so many puzzle pieces saying the same kinds of things . . . I don’t have the luxury of dismissing it out of hand.
He cites high level sources with photocopies.
http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/123/211-232K/
If you don’t have time to watch it now, I encourage you to copy the link and save it in a safe place and get to it when you at all can. Sometimes such things disappear.