I am not wrong. Your confused and deluded believing that everybody that does not believe as you do does not understand.Oh, so now, because you are wrong, you're redefining what you said earlier. It's laughable!
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I am not wrong. Your confused and deluded believing that everybody that does not believe as you do does not understand.Oh, so now, because you are wrong, you're redefining what you said earlier. It's laughable!
This is a traditional belief, and not documented by any objective evidence,JESUS DOESN'T LIE! His church was established through the Apostles. If you read your Bible, you will find that to be true.
To claim that "His church" is the Catholic denomination is not true. Read some of my earlier posts, starting with #315. Here is a brief excerpt...
The Coptic Church of Egypt is the earliest Christian church in the world, going back to around 42 AD.
(If you follow your language, the Coptic Church of Egypt is the only true church!)
Okay. You believe your source, I believe mine. The difference is that you are looking for the information to back your claim that the Catholic church was first, but I am not trying to find an answer that proves my denomination. Therefore, I believe what I have shown to be the truth.No it's not.
1. The first church established was the church in Jersualem, not Egypt.
2. There was no oriental orthodox churches, including the coptic church, until they split away from the Catholic church in 451.
I am confused and deluded? LOL!!! You are the one who believes that everybody that does not believe as you do does not understand.I am not wrong. Your confused and deluded believing that everybody that does not believe as you do does not understand.
I supplied you a link to show you're wrong, which you basically have ignored.Okay. You believe your source, I believe mine. The difference is that you are looking for the information to back your claim that the Catholic church was first, but I am not trying to find an answer that proves my denomination. Therefore, I believe what I have shown to be the truth.
Yes… Ignatius from the 16th century… not a good source for what was at the beginning.The fact that by the end of the first century these churches were called the Catholic church, including the famous attribution by Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrneans, chapter 8 -- "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
And you have ignored my link.I supplied you a link to show you're wrong, which you basically have ignored.
The New Testament, in particular the Gospels, records Jesus' activities and teaching, his appointment of the Twelve Apostles and his Great Commission of the apostles, instructing them to continue his work.[42][43] The book Acts of Apostles, tells of the founding of the Christian church and the spread of its message to the Roman empire.[44] The Catholic Church teaches that its public ministry began on Pentecost, occurring fifty days following the date Christ is believed to have resurrected.[45] At Pentecost, the apostles are believed to have received the Holy Spirit, preparing them for their mission in leading the church.[46][47] The Catholic Church teaches that the college of bishops, led by the bishop of Rome are the successors to the Apostles.[48]
In the account of the Confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ designates Peter as the "rock" upon which Christ's church will be built.[49][50] The Catholic Church considers the bishop of Rome, the pope, to be the successor to Saint Peter.[51] Some scholars state Peter was the first bishop of Rome.[52] Others say that the institution of the papacy is not dependent on the idea that Peter was bishop of Rome or even on his ever having been in Rome.[53] Many scholars hold that a church structure of plural presbyters/bishops persisted in Rome until the mid-2nd century, when the structure of a single bishop and plural presbyters was adopted,[54] and that later writers retrospectively applied the term "bishop of Rome" to the most prominent members of the clergy in the earlier period and also to Peter himself.[54] On this basis, Oscar Cullmann,[55] Henry Chadwick,[56] and Bart D. Ehrman[57] question whether there was a formal link between Peter and the modern papacy. Raymond E. Brown also says that it is anachronistic to speak of Peter in terms of local bishop of Rome, but that Christians of that period would have looked on Peter as having "roles that would contribute in an essential way to the development of the role of the papacy in the subsequent church". These roles, Brown says, "contributed enormously to seeing the bishop of Rome, the bishop of the city where Peter died and where Paul witnessed the truth of Christ, as the successor of Peter in care for the church universal".-- Catholic Church - Wikipedia
Also, check out this link: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia
The term "catholic" was used as a descriptor of the church of the apostles by the end of the 1st century, and then around the end of the 2nd century it became the primary name used. "Orthodox" was another descriptor but didn't get used formally until the Great Schism.Catholic applied is simply “universal” - not denominational unless you want to apply it in context of 16th century and not what is written in the 1st century.
I provided evidence, and yet all you've done is to post your opinion.And you have ignored my link.
The Catholic church teaches... , the Catholic church teaches... , the Catholic church teaches... So what!
Regarding Peter as "the rock" ignores that facts that shortly thereafter, Jesus called Peter "Satan" and "a stumbling block", and after that, Peter denied knowing Christ three times (as was predicted). Then, later, Paul criticized him because of his hypocritical behavior in Galatia. Peter was a flawed person!
Selective choosing something that "proves" your hypothesis about the Catholic denomination is a joke.
Thanks for the update… would sincerely love a site so I can read and learnThe term "catholic" was used as a descriptor of the church of the apostles by the end of the 1st century, and then around the end of the 2nd century it became the primary name used. "Orthodox" was another descriptor but didn't get used formally until the Great Schism.
No, I never asserted this, you didI am confused and deluded? LOL!!! You are the one who believes that everybody that does not believe as you do does not understand.
No, I have provided evidence, which you have ignored. You are looking for "evidence" to bolster your predetermined "facts"; you are not looking for the truth.I provided evidence, and yet all you've done is to post your opinion.
BTW, of course Peter was "flawed", so...? But if you serious took Jesus' words seriously when he asked "Who do you say I am?", Jesus starts out "Thou are Petros, ...", which then leads into a play on words dealing with "rock or stone" [the Aramaic word is the same for both].
You have clearly expressed your religious beliefs. An example, you wrote: "Do you believe in a literal Divine inspired Pentateuch and the Noah world flood.? A plain reading of the NT confirms the authors and the Church Fathers believed this."No, I never asserted this, you did
Please cite a post where I claimed others do not understand my belief or any other belief. As far as this thread I have not presented my religious beliefs, but detailed references concerned the facts of the thread.
My posts are detailed with references, everyone with a basic high school education can understand standard English,
This is a factual statement based on the text of the Bible, and not what I believe concerning the understanding of the text,You have clearly expressed your religious beliefs. An example, you wrote: "Do you believe in a literal Divine inspired Pentateuch and the Noah world flood.? A plain reading of the NT confirms the authors and the Church Fathers believed this."
You've talked to the authors?Do you believe the story of Noah and the world flood was literally true as the authors believed?
You still have not responded to my post #333. Secondly, I DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER TO YOU. I will post as I see fit.This is a factual statement based on the text of the Bible, and not what I believe concerning the understanding of the text,
It is obvious that the authors and Church Fathers wrote what they believed. Is there any reason why they would not?
You still have not answered the question as to what you believe concerning whether the Pentateuch is literal history.
Do you believe the story of Noah and the world flood was literally true as the authors believed?
Still waiting . . .
No, I have provided evidence, which you have ignored. You are looking for "evidence" to bolster your predetermined "facts"; you are not looking for the truth.
Your post #325 exalts Peter artificially because you have to justify his position as the first pope, the leader of the Roman denomination. Regarding "Petros", Jesus called him "a stumbling block' (and Satan) shortly thereafter. Again, he was a flawed man who denied Christ.
No, I have provided facts. Here are the excerpts from the Bible.You have provided nothing but opinions that have been shown by more than just myself to be erroneous, so there's nowhere to go with this. And just for your information, I did not and do not try to "justify his position" as the Gospels themselves do this, for example sometimes just saying "Peter and the others".
You are confused. We are discussing the Ignatius of the first century, who died in 110. Some of the letters attributed to him have been determined by textual analysts to be forgeries. His letter to the Smyrnaeans is not one of those. It's the real deal.Yes… Ignatius from the 16th century… not a good source for what was at the beginning.
lipping the end...You are confused. We are discussing the Ignatius of the first century, who died in 110. Some of the letters attributed to him have been determined by textual analysts to be forgeries. His letter to the Smyrnaeans is not one of those. It's the real deal.