Posted on 12/17/2012 1:19:04 PM PST by RnMomof7
How interesting! Thank you Elsie. That most certainly deserves more study.
Let me repeat there was no Bible until 476 B.C. There are however, records of Peter having been in Rome and that Mark was Peter’s secretary. If he hadn’t been, the Gospel of Mark would have never appeared in the Gospels.
Why don’t we just leave this with the fact that you will never change my beliefs and I will never change your beliefs and let it go at that.
1Clem 57:1 Ye therefore that laid the foundation of the sedition, submit yourselves unto the presbyters and receive chastisement unto repentance, bending the knees of your heart.
The greek presbyters translates not priet or pope..but elder
Again, nothing in your reply appears to address the text I posted.
Prayers, even those of popes, are not doctrine. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Again, nothing in your reply appears to address the text I posted.Smack between especially in the later part (56, 58, etc.0
Is 57 and to whom does Clement give THAT AUTHORITY??????? ELDERS !!!!
Picking verses out of context is not useful...
LOL! Physician, heal thyself.
Clement here gave the authority to PRESBYTERS ..not priest, not popes
And Clement IS a presbyter (bishop).
Galatians should end the chase and knock the pradas off Rome's claims. ()s will be my response, as will be apparent:
Paul writes in Gal., Chapter2: "Then after THREE YEARS I went up to Rome to see Peter...(WAIT, that's not what the Bible says, it says Paul went up to JERUSALEM to see Peter...)...."Then FOURTEEN YEARS AFTER I went up again to ROME (no...JERUSALEM). SEVENTEEN YEARS Paul seeks the apostles, Peter especially, IN JERUSALEM, NOT ROME. And he finds them right there, where he expected them to be. In JERUSALEM. He continues on with what his revelation and mission was in going to Jerusalem and meeting with the 12. ANd then something VERY interesting happens.
"And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, PERCEIVED THE GRACE THAT WAS GIVEN UNTO ME, they gave unto me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that WE should go UNTO THE HEATHEN, and THEY UNTO THE CIRCUMCISION.
With that one passage of Scripture, we learn that Peter and the 11 loosed themselves of the "Gospel of the Kingdom", "The Gospel of the Circumcision" found in Mark, to go to "all the world" to preach to EVERY CREATURE (Mark 16:15) and make disciples of ALL NATIONS (Matt. 28:19) beginning at Jerusalem. And they, the twelve Apostles who will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel when Christ returns and sets up His Kingdom. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they entered into a SOLEMN AGREEMENT with Paul, this "other Apostle" that HE should go to the Gentiles, preaching the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, the Gospel of the Grace of God, while THEY CONFINED THEIR MINISTRY TO ISRAEL. (Gal. 2:7-9).
HERE is the downfall of the RCC claim to apostolic succession and authority. And don't forget RCCs: what the 12 bound on earth was bound in heaven, and what was loosed on earth was loosed in heaven.
crash, burn, and smoldering in the dust....IF you believe that God says what He means and means what He says in His Word...
So do now you believe everything told to a friend of yours by Monsignors or just the bits you want to believe?
ouch.....
HERE is the downfall of the RCC claim to apostolic succession and authority. And don't forget RCCs: what the 12 bound on earth was bound in heaven, and what was loosed on earth was loosed in heaven.
crash, burn, and smoldering in the dust....IF you believe that God says what He means and means what He says in His Word...
And considering that the RCC claims to have WRITTEN Scripture, based on oral tradition, that makes it even more incontrovertible.
By their own words (as they claim Scripture to be) they annihilate their own claim to papal succession.
That's right, rnmom. What makes you think you can believe anything any old Catholic tells you?
There is another angle that crossed my mind. The Catholics claim Peter was using code when he said Babylon but was really referring to Rome and that was common in that day. If that was so common wouldn’t the Romans also know of the term? So much for hiding his whereabouts. And when Herod Agrippa imprisoned Peter, he was in Jerusalem (Acts 12:1-4) Also Paul goes to Jerusalem to see Peter and even abides with him there. Therefore, Peter must have lived there (Galatians 1:18).
You can look for the the divine in nature, if you like, in the mass we enter the presence of the Lord in the appearances of Bread and Wine.
As for the the rest, I am sure that you are offended by such language, because you don’t understand its meaning.We cast ourselves into Mary’s arms as a child might, seeking comfort, as Jesus himself must have when confronted by terrors beyond his human understanding. We do not think of Mary as high priest, but as mother. “Fountain of Faith.” But of course, and Jesus is the living waters who issues from her womb. “Lily of all holiness” a flowering of the grace that has made her the mother of Our Lord. Does Mary conquer dead? Yes, we will all the saints who rise at the end of time, except she is what the other saints will be, except more exaulted, because she has been closer to the Almighty than we. The Holy Spirit, the glory of the Lord, covered her like a cloud and in that moment the Word was made flesh. Her mission is to convert the world by bearing the son of God.
You know the marian dogmas are at bottom, meditations on the mystery of the Incarnation of God. Too many evangelicals take the First two chapters of Luke lightly, and the Virgin Birth no more than a “sign” of the divinity of the Jesus, and fail to consider the character of the woman who gave birth to Our Lord. A person, hardly more than a child, a daughter of Zion, in human terms among the less of humans, but at the same time, the greatest, most privileged of us all.
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Nay rather, (Greek Menounge: nay surely, nay rather) blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
Exactly, CB. Galatians gives us so much information regarding the 12, and Paul. And if it were read like it is written, without preconceived opinions of what “religion” has taught, it would be crystal clear. But alas, there is no power or money or puffed up sense of self in religion if the truth is simply believed as it is simply told.
Matthew 11:11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Scripture and Jesus never says the things about Mary that it does about John the Baptist. If those things that the RCC claim are true about Mary and so important, I would fully expect them to be revealed in Scripture. But they aren't.
Let’s first consider all of the words used to set the scene for the dialog in Matthew 16. Following the feeding of the 5,000 near Capernaum and the dialog in the Synagogue in which Jesus declared His body the Eucharist and real food Jesus took Peter and along with the other Apostles and Disciples up to Caesarea Philippi to reveal his papacy to him. Jesus’ selection of the exact location of the origins of the River Jordan to found His Church is not coincidental.
Caesarea Philippi was a Gentile city located near the Golan Heights. It is a 25 mile, two day hike from Capernaum through some pretty rough country. The city, previously known as Panis, was built above a huge rock wall that was known in ancient times as the “Rock of the Gods”. It was a very important location militarily, and had been a place of temples and worship dating back thousands of years before the first century.
At the base of the cliff is a massive grotto that at the time was a natural cistern that the Greeks and their predecessors believed was a gate to the underworld. Physically, that rock stood between a city of temples and the gates of hell.
It was before this rock wall, with the temple to Pan the pagan god of chaos and confusion, that the conversation took place. In the presence of the massive rock that was a foundation to a holy city Jesus told Peter that he was a smaller rock, and that upon it, like the larger rock upon which was built the city before them, He would build His Church and that it would stand forever against the gates of hell. A side note is that all of this arguing about the relevance of Petros versus Petra is foolish in the context of that location. Jesus often used wordplay and humor to convey His message.
Jesus began the dialog by asking His Apostles and Disciples who the people said He was. He was demonstrating His rejection of a democratic, self-interpreting Church. The response to the question was varied. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, some said one of the prophets. All were wrong. Jesus rejected a democratic or self-directed church governance.
Jesus then asked the Apostles collectively who they thought He was. He was answered with silence and He then rejected an oligarchical or elite governance. Then, without consulting the other Apostles, Peter stepped forward and declared that Jesus was indeed the Son of the Living God, which was the correct answer. Jesus acknowledged this and declared that Peter could only have learned this from God, designating that, like the God had throughout the history of His people, God had chosen one person to be the spiritual leader to carry on after Jesus. And there, before the rock that stood between the ancient temple city of Caesarea Philippi and the cave grotto that was known to the people on the region as the gates or jaws of hell declared, it was upon Peter that he would found his Church, His Ekklesia, His Qahal.
Peace be with you.
I'm sure you can build an equally weak case for it being Toledo, Tokyo or Timbuktu too, but it wasn't. When you have to work that hard to find an alternative to it being Rome it is more than obvious that your agenda is clouding your judgment.
Peace be with you,
I'm sure you can build an equally weak case for it being Toledo, Tokyo or Timbuktu too, but it wasn't. When you have to work that hard to find an alternative to it being Rome it is more than obvious that your agenda is clouding your judgment.
Peace be with you
Mary heard the word of God, and kept it.
"And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [...] Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." - Luke 1:28,41-42
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.