Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: daniel1212
"Bible Christians." But of course, there simply was no "Catholic" Bible because the NT church simply was not Catholic, esp. Roman.

Yeah, it was...there was no one else there...the early church formed in the area and moved to Rome...P4eter was the titular head and it grew to what it is today from there....not complicated.

626 posted on 02/29/2016 7:24:44 PM PST by terycarl (COMMON SENSE PREVAILS OVERALL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies ]


To: daniel1212

Such a useful myth for another religion, don’tcha think?


628 posted on 02/29/2016 7:28:06 PM PST by MHGinTN (Democrats bait then switch; their fishy voters buy it every time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies ]

To: terycarl
Yeah, it was...there was no one else there...the early church formed in the area and moved to Rome...

What 'area'?

Common sense wants to know.

732 posted on 03/01/2016 4:58:39 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies ]

To: terycarl
Yeah, it was...there was no one else there...the early church formed in the area and moved to Rome...P4eter was the titular head and it grew to what it is today from there....not complicated.

Actually trying to get the the whole "acorn to tree" contrivance to work is quite "complicated," and you are going to have to find a whole lot more in invisible ink than moving Peter to Rome in order to produce the church of Rome out of the NT church, including the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted heads, while Paul does not even mention Peter at all in his letter to the church at Rome, despite mentioning about 34 contemporary people.

And nowhere, including in any epistles to the churches or in the Lord's critiques of the churches in Rv. 2+3, is the NT church even told to submit to Peter as its head, nor commended for so doing or criticized for not doing so, including as a solution for any of their many problems that are mentioned.

Moreover, while Peter was the initial street-level leader among brethren, and the first to use the gospel-keys to the kingdom, (Col. 1:13) and whom Paul briefly stayed with for a little time - 3 years after a certain devout disciple had baptized and laid hands on the fasting Paul for his healing and filling with the Spirit, and he began preaching, (Gal. 1:16-18) yet in the ecumenical council of Acts 15 it is James "the brother of the Lord," who provided the Scripturally substantiated final judgment, confirmatory of Peter and Paul. And in the only mention of Peter in any epistle as being active in leadership, then he is mentioned second behind James, (Gal. 2:9) who also is the only one named in Acts 21 where Paul is exhorted as to what he should do concerning the Jews (Acts 21:15-26) It is also not not that, among many other things befitting a pope (which he was not), Paul is the only apostle recorded has having actually called a council of elders, (Acts 20:17) and to have rebuked another apostle, (Galatians 2:11) and call himself "father," (1 Corinthians 4:15).

And concerning historical research, see here.

815 posted on 03/02/2016 6:21:39 AM PST by daniel1212 ( Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned and destitute sinner+ trust Him to save you, then follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson