Posted on 01/06/2013 3:56:49 PM PST by NYer
Bl. John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” History paints an overwhelming picture of St. Peter’s apostolic ministry in Rome and this is confirmed by a multitude of different sources within the Early Church. Catholic Encyclopedia states, “In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure.” Protestantism as a whole seeks to divorce Christianity from history by rending Gospel message out of its historical context as captured by our Early Church Fathers. One such target of these heresies is to devalue St. Peter and to twist the authority of Rome into a historical mishap within Christianity. To wit, the belief has as its end the ultimate end of all Catholic and Protestant dialogue – who has authority in Christianity?
Why is it important to defend the tradition of St. Peter and Rome?
The importance of establishing St. Peter’s ministry in Rome may be boiled down to authority and more specifically the historic existence and continuance of the Office of Vicar held by St. Peter. To understand why St. Peter was important and what authority was given to him by Christ SPL has composed two lists – 10 Biblical Reasons Christ Founded the Papacy and 13 Reasons St. Peter Was the Prince of the Apostles.
The rest of the list is cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia on St. Peter and represents only a small fraction of the evidence set therein.
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.
That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ’s prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not — “And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.
St. Peter’s First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.
Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (chapter 5):
“Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory”.
He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom “among us” (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chapter 4). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.
In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive” (Epistle to the Romans 4). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.
Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says:
“You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).
Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 3.1). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
In his “Hypotyposes” (Eusebius, Church History IV.14), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: “After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above).
Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In De Præscriptione 36, he says:
“If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John.”
In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (On Baptism 5) that there is “no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Against Marcion 4.5).
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his “Dialogue with Proclus” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25) directed against the Montanists: “But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church”.
By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to “the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there” (i.e. at Rome).
There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment (“Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat”, ed. Preuschen, Tübingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter’s death in Rome.
The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome.
All believers are provided direct access to God in Christ, “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; “ (Hebrews 10:19-20) “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father, “ (Ephesians 2:18) without the need for canonized saint secretaries. And by which they can (and are to) confess their sins to him who is faithful and just to forgive us.Amen
...or think of themselves or others above what is written, (1Cor. 4:6) who love to have the preeminence, (3Jn. 1:9) such as who make demigods out of created mortals or religious org., so they particularly are the unique vessels of salvation and access to God, rejecting all others as lost or inferior, regardless of superior Scriptural substantiation.And Amen!
And thus the church began in rejection from those who presumed too much...preaching the risen Lord Jesus in word and in power, not all about an institutionalized church with its pompous leaders with ostentatious clothing, titles and elitist self declarationsNice nutshell you got there.
oh good grief, now I know that you've never been in a clean barn or stable.....These people provide FOOD for you and yours, their facilities are as clean as they can possibly make them.......she didn't give birth "on the floor" she absolutely gave birth on a cloak, spread over a bed of clean straw and probably quite comfortable.....you need to get around a little.
So?
you love to group these together....Let me explain something to you, Catholics are the ONLY true/complete Christian church on Earth.....Mormons and muslims are not Christian at all....Protestants are indeed Christian, just incomplete.
OH NO we no longer have Passover....Constantine, shame on you
Here are a few differences:
1. The Bible DOES contain many verses that speak of a "catching up" or "taking up" of believers before the time called the Tribulation (see Matthew 24, I Thessalonians 4, I Corinthians 15 and Revelation). There IS no Biblical reference to Mary being caught up.
2. No Protestant denomination makes belief in the Rapture a prerequisite to BE saved.
3. Many different viewpoints exist concerning when this will happen as well as some that don't believe it is a separate occurrence from the second coming of Christ.
4. Roman Catholicism has mandated that all MUST believe in the Assumption of Mary because the "Church" says so and they don't allow anyone freedom to not believe it.
5. The early Christians did not believe this took place as a tenet of the faith. Though, some imagined it happened and there were stories and legends surrounding it, the declaration that it now must be believed was not formally instituted until eighteen hundred years later. Belief in it was considered a sweet and "pious" thing to think concerning Mary but it was NEVER made a tenet of the Christian faith. For Catholics now, you either believe it or you are excommunicated.
Belief in the Rapture - which has significantly more Scriptural support - is NOT demanded as essential to being saved. Though I personally think MANY Christians are going to be pleasantly surprised when they ARE caught up to be with the Lord forever, I don't think they will be stuck here with unbelievers just because they didn't believe in it. Faith in Jesus Christ as Savior is mandatory, belief in the Rapture isn't.
I'm not very smart, when you say something like that, I have no idea as to the post you are referring to...what did I assume wrong?????(by the way...after you clear this up for me.....I will be right!!)
"Give it a rest" with the nitpicking.
It wasn't stated that the straw was removed and Mary was laid on the bare floor.
Or are you saying Joseph, the carpenter, made a bed for her?
No, covering would have been put on the "floor" upon which was straw-maybe walked on by a few critters but without any..."dirt" in the straw.
They didn't need sterile pristine, they just needed plain old clean.
(26) Be ye angry , and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: (27) Neither give place to the devil-- Ephesians 4:26-27
Conceived as the light entering the temple (John 10:22 / John 8:12)shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachI start by reading John 1:14 under the illumination of the Ru'ach HaKodesh.
John 1:14 And the WORD became flesh,The word for Tabernacle, mishkan, is a derivative of the
and [fn]dwelt among us,
and we saw His glory,
glory as of the only begotten from the Father,
full of grace and truth.[fn](1:14) Or, tabernacled; i.e. lived temporarily
σκηνόω Strong's G4637 - skēnoō
1) to fix one's tabernacle,
have one's tabernacle,
abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent),
tabernacle
2) to dwell
same root and is used in the sense of dwelling-place in the BibleThe verse also provides illumination as to
Yah'shua being the Shekhinah glory.Shekhinah means the dwelling or settling, and denotes the dwelling
or settling of the divine presence of God, especially in the Temple in Jerusalem.Here is a very visual source:
Jesus' date of birthJust based on scripture.
Again the first clue to the birth of Yah'shua is John 1:14 as cited above.
Important events in the life of Yah'shua occurred
on YHvH commanded Feast days as metaphors of the feast.Conceived as the light entering the temple (John 10:22 / John 8:12)
Born on the Feast of Tabernacles.(John 1:14)
Circumcised on the Feast of Simchat Torah ( Joy of the WORD)
Bread and wine of the Pesach.
Death as the Lamb of G-d on Hag Matzoh.
Rising on the Feast of First Fruits.
Sending the Ru'ach HaKodesh on the Feast of Shavuot(Pentecost).Who knows if the final trump will occur on the Feast of Trumpets
Seek YHvH in His WORD.
That's the church, the body of Christ.
Christians of all denominations are part of the church, even Catholics.
Although it appears they like to seperate them selves out and place themselves above dreaded "portestants" and simple individual members of God's Kingdom.
Why do you think the Founders of the USA put into the constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?"
So no denomination would be seen as supreme over the others.
Or be the "official" denomination of the USA.
And thus the church began in rejection from those who presumed too much...preaching the risen Lord Jesus in word and in power, not all about an institutionalized church with its pompous leaders with ostentatious clothing, titles and elitist self declarations
James 2:14-24
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
Roman Catholicism has mandated that all MUST believe in the Assumption of Mary because the "Church" says so and they don't allow anyone freedom to not believe it.
5. The early Christians did not believe this took place as a tenet of the faith. Though, some imagined it happened and there were stories and legends surrounding it, the declaration that it now must be believed was not formally instituted until eighteen hundred years later. Belief in it was considered a sweet and "pious" thing to think concerning Mary but it was NEVER made a tenet of the Christian faith. For Catholics now, you either believe it or you are excommunicated.
this thread is GREAT, very informative and more than entertaining, I’ve learned a lot from some of you and hope that I’ve ,at least caused some of you to THINK instead of just spouting off.....I hope it continues for a long time!
James 2:14-24
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
So, a good rule to remember in Biblical Hermeneutics is when you have a verse that is confusing or seems to contradict other verses, you interpret the harder one by the easier ones. We know from MANY other Scriptures that we are NOT justified by our works...even this verse from James 2:23 reiterates this, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." We also have this mentioned again in Galatians 3:6, "In the same way, "Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith." and Romans 4:3, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." and Genesis 15:6, "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.".
The context of the verse in James - that only seems to contradict other verses shows us that James is talking about our faith demonstrated by actions/works and if someone comes to you naked and hungry and you just say, "Be warmed and filled!", does this save (help) that person, does he get warm and something to eat because we have faith or is he rescued by our actions? In this way, our faith is demonstrated to others by the outward things we do. And a genuine, born again faith WILL be a living and fruit filled faith. Faith without having any outward change or action demonstrates a dead and fruitless faith. BUT, and this is critical, it is NOT our works/actions that save us. Only by faith are we made righteous because it is by God's grace, by His gift, that we accept by faith.
This is not "dueling verses game" here, Scripture IS clear and can be understood through the leading of the Holy Spirit and God will NOT contradict His word.
The Catholic believer must now either accept Scripture with Paul's simple statement or accept as infallible a statement to the contrary by a Pope.
What sort of double think of faith, morals and intellect must this take.
Let’s look at that verse. Notice I have highlighted the word says? No one here has said that true faith does not produce good works. Jesus answered the question “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” by stating, “that ye believe on him whom he hath sent”. That was the first step and the saving step. The results and proof of that “faith” is that someone will begin to act differently.
On the other side of that is that someone can do “good works” all their lives but not be saved. Jesus also told us that there would be people who come before Him and claim to have done many good things. His reply is “I never knew you”. Good works does not save. Faith saves and the results of that faith in Jesus will produce good works naturally because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit since without Him “there is no goodness in us”.
James 2 also says in verse 19 “the devils also believe, and tremble” but that belief isn’t shown by a loving trust in Jesus as savior which transforms and produces good works. A genuine faith in Jesus as Lord and savior is what results in our salvation. That genuine faith produces a loving relationship with Jesus who transforms a person and is shown by the way they live and act. It’s not the works that save or even add to our salvation. The good deeds or works that we do is only an indication of the kind of faith we have.
I pity the fellow that can only spell a word one way...
(Note that WHERE He was physically delivered is NOT mentioned.)
21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.
Some of the basic assumptions about the Nativity are simply not supported by Scripture.
Third, Jesus was not born in a barn or a stable, but within a home that had a traditional Phante.
I encourage you to read the Scripture.
Uh; I just posted 'scripture'; and your #3 is NOT found there.
Wanna rethink this?
We DO?
Just HOW do we know this??
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.