Posted on 06/20/2023 4:00:14 PM PDT by vespa300
PRACTICALLY everything that Protestants regard as es- sential or important they have received from the Catholic Church. They accepted Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made that change.
(Excerpt) Read more at archive.org ...
So, the Babylonian Pope Gregorian calendar is PINO?
A calendar that would have been called Antichrist by the First Protesters of Rome had they been alive when the Antichrist Papacy created it..
That’s not really a Mother of Harlots problem.
That’s her Harlot daughters are hypocrites problem..
It has the Papacy name and authority, just been bastardized by the Pagans in Germany that somehow still kept the Antichrist’s false days of its false week alive..
Somebody should tell the Papacy to dump the German Pope Gregory calendar and follow the Bible..
Or keep blaming others for their changing times and law, like Daniel said it would..
Somehow false God Woden isn’t going to be pleased when His Kingdom come.
Neither will the Papacy when their false days go bye bye too.
Today isn’t His 4th Work Day. It’s actually His 2nd work day,
That’s bad news for false god Woden’s day fans and Papacy fans..
Fully leavened is still fully leavened.
But JAMES, the brother of the Lord had the power. Even Peter separated himself from Hebrew Christians when those from Jerusalem paid a call.
Galatians 2
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
Yet St Paul circumcised Timothy as reported...
Acts 16:16 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
It’s bizarre
Yuppers.
Thanks
Yep, the one He chose to lead.
Apparently you think you can do better than your master.
——>Ceremonial laws were abolished on the cross. You need to know the difference between temporary and permanent.
His hatred for the Sabbath makes him unable to understand.
***Even Peter separated himself from Hebrew Christians ***
Woops! Peter separated himself from the GENTILE Christians!
An error by me. Peter separated himself from the GENTILE Christians!
Reread the FIRST PART of the quote cited:
(CAPS emphasis mine)
But since it would be TOO LONG long to enumerate in such a volume as THIS the succession of all the churches, we shall CONFOUND ALL those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or VAINGLORY, or through BLINDNESS and wicked OPINION, assemble other than where it is PROPER,
BY POINTING OUT HERE THE SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS OF THE GREATEST and most ancient church KNOWN TO ALL, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul,
So what is the guy saying here?
He is not saying the Apostles didn't start in Jersusalem.
He is documenting the existence, authority and reason for the Church founded and organized in Rome- Much earlier then the 4th Century.
Sounds like a pretty out-of-control situation... Rome had to deal with.
Now you either believe this guy of the second century or not.
Nobody denies the where the Apostles started from:
Jerusalem was destroyed.
Heresey and its heretic promoters were all over -
and Iraneus is simply pointing out the Authority of Rome was in existence at this time
(Read First Clement and Rome's understood authority over Corinth- 90AD)
So yes you can say Jerusalem Church was first -
Can you say what books were - or were not in their Bible?
The Christians in Bithynia were observing church in 110 AD on Sunday and it had nothing to do with any teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. See Pliny’s letter to Trajan.
Did you read the quote from Irenaeus that Campion posted, which, to clarify, I put in both of my posts as the basis of what I'm responding to? Campion and Irenaeus didn't say there was not a church in Jerusalem. But they did say that the church in Jerusalem wasn't there first, (an implication by Irenaeus' quote that the church originated in Rome, not Jerusalem). I correct that by showing that the church couldn't have possibly originated in Rome if the Bible itself describes God's church in Jerusalem before it was in Rome. Therefore, Irenaeus (and Campion) are wrong in saying that the church originated in Rome and, by implication, the Roman see should be the central authority over the church.
Peter was killed for his beliefs ultimately——IIRC
.
John was the only apostle to die
Naturally.
.
Foxes Book describes Many.
Peter was not chosen to lead.
Peter was not the “rock.”
I think all the Apostles, other than Judas, were chosen to lead. They were prophets. But you are right, Peter was not the rock.
Your unbroken losing streak continues.
It is true that the “Catholic Church existed from the beginning” (meaning, since Pentecost), but you are wrong if you think it’s the “Roman Catholic Church.”
There is one true, universal church.
IOW— I caught your verbal sleight-of-hand.
I protest against your church’s lies. That makes me a Protestant.
“Who has bewitched you?“
I know. You don’t know.
>>>The Christians in Bithynia were observing church in 110 AD on Sunday and it had nothing to do with any teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. See Pliny’s letter to Trajan.>>>
I’m going to quote from Dr. Samuele Bacchicchi’s “From the Sabbath to Sunday” which traces the origin of Sunday keeping to the Roman Catholic church. Dr. Bacchiocchi received his Ph’d from the Vatican University, that is the Gregorian, and received the Pope’s medal for his thesis which provides conclusive proof that A. there is no Bible support for Sunday keeping and B. Sunday keeping came into the church over 100 years after the apostolic church.
On page 96 and 97, The late Dr. Bacchiocchi addresses this letter....and I quote:
“A letter from Pliny, governor of Bithynia, (dated A.D. 112) to the
Emperor Trajan, sheds light on this question.22 There the governor, who asks
the Emperor to instruct him on the procedure to follow in processing the
Christians, reports what he had found out about the Christians’ “guilt” through
long interrogations united with torture. He states that Christians on “an appointed day (stato die) had been accustomed to meet before daybreak” for a
religious service. Later on the same day (apparently in the evening) they met
again to partake of “ordinary and harmless food.” He then adds, “from all
these things they desisted after my edict which, in accordance with your
orders, prohibited the associations (he taeriae).”23 It is clear that Christian
gatherings came under the suspicion of the hetaeriae because they shared an
obvious resemblance, namely, both assembled for their communal meals in
the evening of appointed days.
We are not informed to what extent the prohibition of the hetaeriae
was applied in the whole empire.24 It would appear however that any kind of
fraternity was viewed with suspicion. Trajan (A.D. 117-138), for instance,
Three New Testament Texts and the Origin of Sunday 94
turned down Pliny’s request for permission to constitute a firemen guild that
would not exceed one hundred and fifty members, in order to protect the city
of Nicomedia from future fires. The Emperor’s rationale is that “whatever
title we give them, and whatever our object in giving it, men who are banded
together for a common end will all the same become a political association
before long.”
That Christians came under this kind of suspicion is indicated by the
protest of Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-225) against the insinuation that the Christian agape meal was a “factio” (a meeting of the hetaeria’s kind). After describing the nature of the agape feasts, the North African Bishop writes:
“Give the congregation of the Christians its due, and hold it unlawful, if it is
like assemblies of the illicit sort: by all means let it be condemned, if any
complaint can be validly laid against it, such as lies against secret factions.
But who has ever suffered harm from our assemblies? We are in our congregations just what we are when separated from each other; ... when the pious,
when the pure assemble in congregation, you ought not to call that a faction
but a curia—i.e., the court of God.”25
This prevailing suspicion that the Christians’ religious meals were a
kind of illegal assemblies, coupled with the accusation that these were
Thyestean banquets,26 could explain the reason for Paul’s indefinite references to the time of the gatherings. To avoid giving rise to such suspicions,
the Christians in Corinth may well have changed from week to week both
the day and the place of their evening Lord’s Supper meals.
Almost all authors maintain that the “appointed day—stato die” on
which according to Pliny Christians gathered, is Sunday.27 W. Rordorf, for
instance, holds that “Stato die cannot easily be satisfactorily understood except as a reference to Sunday.”28 If this prevailing interpretation is correct,
then Rordorf’s conclusion that “Paul ordered the setting aside of money to
take place on Sunday . . . because the Christians had already begun to fix
their calendar by reference to the weekly Sunday,” 29 would deserve consideration. (Note however that about fifty years separate the two documents
and during that period of time, as we shall notice, changes could readily
have occurred).
But, does “stato die” necessarily refer to a regularly recurring Sunday meeting? The term “status” (a participle of sisto) which means “appointed, established, fixed, determined, regular” does not exclusively imply
a fixed recurring day, when used in reference to time, but also one which is
appointed or established. The gathering then could recur periodically but not
necessarily on the self-same day.
Three New Testament Texts and the Origin of Sunday 95
The context suggests also several reasons why “stato die” could possibly be a day fixed from week to week. Christians were denounced, processed and condemned in the province. This is indicated by the fact that
Pliny upon his arrival found the problem already existing. To avoid giving
cause of suspicion it is possible that Christians every week changed the day
and place of their gathering. Moreover, the governor by means of interrogation and torture had obtained detailed information regarding the time of the
day and the manner in which the Christian assembly was conducted. But in
regard to the actual day he found out only that they gathered on a “stated
day.”
If Christians in Bithynia were already gathering regularly on Sunday, they would have confessed this as they disclosed the rest of their worship activities. We shall notice that a few decades later (ca. A.D. 150) Justin
Martyr explicitly and emphatically informs the Emperor that Christians gathered on “the day of the Sun,”30 apparently as a means of creating a favorable
impression. Let us note also that Pliny was cautiously appealing to the Emperor for a more humane application of the anti-Christian law which by condemning Christians indiscriminately was causing their killing without regard to their age, sex or attitude. 31 If Pliny had found that they gathered on
the day of the Sun, would he not presumably have mentioned this fact in
order to present the Christian worship in a more favorable light? We shall
later show that the day of the Sun enjoyed in the Roman world a certain
prestige and veneration.
In the light of this excursus we conclude that the “appointed day” of
Pliny is not necessarily the selfsame day of the week, unless it was the Sabbath, which possibly Pliny prefers not to mention to avoid placing Christians in a worse light by associating them with the Jews. The latter revolted
during Trajan’s time in Libya, Cyrene, Egypt, Cyprus and Mesopotania.
Extensive massacres took place before these revolts were crushed.32 To report to Trajan that the Christians gathered weekly on the day of Saturn like
the Jews would have encouraged the Emperor to take harsher measures, the
very thing Pliny’s letter wished to discourage. Any attempt therefore to draw
support for Paul’s first-day coIlection~plan from Pliny’s testimony appears
unwarranted.
And the ritual conducted on the “appointed” day is the same as Paul participated in on the first day of the week in Troas.
>>>>And the ritual conducted on the “appointed” day is the same as Paul participated in on the first day of the week in Troas.>>>
Right, like Paul changed the 10 commandments, He would have been stoned in a new york minute. Paul said the law was holy just and good. Sure would have been nice if Paul had informed us in scripture that God’s holy day was changed. He had ample opportunity, in fact Jesus did too.
But nothing.....nowhere. Go ahead and twist, bend, and turn.....God’s holy day sanctified at creation for man is never going to change.....Jesus said NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE. Just what is it that evangelicals don’t get?
Rome gets it and I respect her for it. She just happens to claim she’s above that......Today’s evangelicals are in denial. Some serious denial.
“I think that even a publican can figger out just exactly what is NEEDED.”
Well, the publicans had a little help from God opening their spiritual eyes. But you’ve got the right idea.
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.