Posted on 06/20/2015 12:42:46 PM PDT by rwa265
Just going by Scripture, it appears that the Bishop in Jerusalem was James, to whom Peter, at that point was subservient.
It would be interesting to see a study of Aramaic and Hebrew regarding “Cepha” and whether this masculine/feminine divide is the same (pebble/rock). There are extant MSS in Aramaic that are very ancient, though they likely were “re-translations” from the Greek.
With all that jello you’ll need a good supply of nails and a sturdy hammer!
Polly want a cracker?
In the beginning (Ephesians 5:21) all were to be subject to one another, as it is written.
They were not to have rulers over them (among themselves), as in *some* people being more equal than others, to rule over others (from within the church) as the world at large went about things, as it is written about in Matthew 20:24-28.
Peter is thought to have established the church at Antioch, long before he ever set foot in Rome (or can be in any reasonable way placed there).
It can be established through Scripture that Paul had visited Rome several different times.
Yet when writing to the church at Rome, although Paul included salutation by name for several persons there (at Rome) he made no mention of Peter, or for Peter being there --- at all.
Scripture itself does not place Peter at Rome, or there as that city's bishop, yet there was still church ecclesiology/polity (form of governance) evidenced in Scripture.
Why no "pope" in evidence from the onset? It's because there wasn't one.
For a time, and I'm talking about during the 3rd and 4th, and into the 5th centuries, the church at Rome enjoyed high regard much due to having what was spoken of as double apostolicity, since it was believed that Paul and Peter both had spent time there.
Centuries after various church writers made mention of the church of Rome in that manner (double apostlicity) beginning some time in the 3rd or 4th century, iirc, a bishop of Rome (a.k.a. a pope) made official pronouncement that Paul was (allegedly) under Peter's 'authority', thus in effect throwing one half of the double under the bus.
No one any longer, not for the longest time (other than recounting of past historical discussions) ever speaks of Rome as having double apostolicity. It's all about succession to Peter (alone as highmost).
During the era when such things as double apostolicity were spoken of (in writing) the church of Rome had kept itself somewhat distant from the doctrinal struggles engaged in by churches of the East.
Yet the church of Rome also never presided over, or else ruled over Church Councils which settled those issues, or was looked towards as the one key & decisive "vote" either, even though support from a bishop which presided over the Latin church (more or less) was sought after by competing parties, more for reasons that church unity itself which was regarded as important, and after some centuries time of development of ecclesiology (theory of church government) Rome was one of the churches considered to be a patriarchate, so thus held sway and influence over churches (and bishops) which were thought to be in their geographical sphere of influence, regardless if some of those bishoprics had originated more as Greek church mission efforts, and were fairly near to being as long in existence as the church of Rome (or at Rome) was.
Yet when the Romanists cherry-pick their ways through the old documentary evidence, we rarely (IF EVER) get the real, and full story. Which is one reason I thoroughly despise RC apologetic. They preach: The Roman Catholic Church, instead of the Gospel.
Serve it as cold as a Mormon businessman's balance sheet.
Start the little children off nice and young, get 'em hooked.
Soon, we take over Salt Lake City. Then, the world!
There are 2-3 non-Catholics that are actually Christians on these threads, the rest are simply poser wannabes
Here is the crux of the non-Catholic error. It is not "human" flesh, it is Divine "Super"natural flesh. Not supernatural in the sense of Oogey boogey ghosts/ poltergeists, but rather that which is above our human nature.
I've read many of your posts. I don't see much of any kind of integrity involved! Mostly what we see is typical ad hominems such as your snark above. It doesn't take a degree to see what God provides to the believers.
I don't see any results from all the degrees you claim! If truly educated, then there would reasonably be some cognitive intelligible responses. But, instead, we see repeated attacks and name-calling, and seem never to see actual refutation. I guess it's hard, when Scripture ain't on your side (with out the RC cults distortion or taken out-of-context).
Good luck with that. I guess it helps you sleep at night!
Rev 2 1"To the angel of the assembly in Ephesus write: "He who holds the seven stars in his right hand, he who walks among the seven golden lampstands says these things: ... 6 But this you have, that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.12 "To the angel of the assembly in Pergamum write: "He who has the sharp two-edged sword says these things: ... 15 So you also have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans likewise. 16 Repent therefore, or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of my mouth.
Sadly, catholics are too dull to see that they are the Nicolaitans of this Age. I wonder if some lime jello with shredded carrots would help them? AMtbe a little shredded sharp cheddar cheese in it also?
You can't even show that Peter ordained Linus for crying out loud. You can't prove there was a singular authority in Rome until Constantine. What is this "unbroken chain" nonsense?
It doesn't matter. The Holy Spirit inspired the words to be written in Koine Greek with a distinct difference in the meaning of the two words used. Surely you don't think the Holy Spirit made a mistake do you?
That's really the bottom line isn't it.
LOL, every catholic defending the sacrilege of drinking Christ’s blood is affirming that the god of catholicism is double-minded. They would go so far as to admit the god of catholicism makes mistakes.
So Christ fed the apostles "Super natural flesh" prior to His death and resurrection in His super natural body? Jesus said that the new covenant couldn't happen without the shedding of blood and He hadn't shed any blood at that point.
Post 226 applies to you as well.
Keep reading with “human eyes” let me know how that works out for you.
Seems scripture is opposed to your side.
Stupid facts getting in the way of the Mea Scripturists.
Faith in the made up history of the Catholic Church which flies in the face of historical facts? Faith in an organization that readily admits it incorporates pagan beliefs and practices? Faith in an organization that gives Mary and it's so called saints attributes and abilities only God possesses and rightly deserves? NO THANKS!
Who was it that was recently called out by the RM over the abuse of members handles/Nicknames?
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.