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.
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).
Actually, I followed your reply to the poster very well- which I don’t often do.
I think you need to track your deflection a little better than this.
You got the Iranaeus quote to educate you because you got caught
trying to run the “Pope Damasus First Pope” lie, way later in 382AD
- and the lie that it was the first mention
of Church of Rome primacy of the early Christian world.
The Iraneus quote totally negated your false assertion.
(Personally, I prefer the First Letter of Clement AD80-90 which I asked you to look up and read- and btw is mentioned by Iranaeus in Heresies below.) Though it is worth mentioning the next section of Iranaeua’ Against Heresies that you did not see,
he actually names the
the Bishops of the Rome Church (later to be termed “Pope”) in succession- so that’s pretty cool too. Check it out:
3.3 The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.
Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels……….
To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
Now I’m sure you discount everything- and deny this historical record-
But you are only deceiving yourself. This writing proves beyond doubt there was a primacy of the Church of Rome at or by the turn of the First century. And that there was an episcopal office that led that Church and that which is known as the Office of Bishop.
And in the same way Paul set up the structure to those he preached and converted – in Acts…
which you seem to be familiar with:
23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.
Now you can argue… “well they didn’t call them “Popes”… or the Church at Rome is not in the Bible.
Its foolishness to continue to do so,
and hypocritical as these standards of proof you require for this,
for office, primacy or succession-
is proof or evidence that you yourself could never meet in support of the origin of your own faith organization- and connection to he Apostolic mission.
And deep down you realize that and chose to non-sequitur deflect to Jerusalem Assembly and Acts-
Which was never in question or denied by the poster OR Iranaeus.
Jerusalem being destroyed in 68-70AD would require a new home-
a new Authority- as Iranaeus points out prominently in the citation you were given due to the work of Peter and Paul:
of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.
You can cling to the Jerusalem Church as tight as you can…
though the Apostles came out from there, yes-
it was never meant to be the visible Church as Rome was to be, and that assembly would be dispersed after a few decades.
Either way though-
that is an aside to Iranaeus’ wonderful documentation you were given of the origin of the Church that has been there for 2000 years.
To keep pushing Jerusalem primacy like you have,
only puts you in the same camp as the non-Christian sabbath day Judaizers.
Not that there’s anything too terrible awful about that- just misguided.