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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biblical Mary!
- Thread starter actsfourthirty
- Start date
This is a traditional belief, and not documented by any objective evidence,
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.
I am confused and deluded? LOL!!! You are the one who believes that everybody that does not believe as you do does not understand.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
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
Yes… Ignatius from the 16th century… not a good source for what was at the beginning.
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.
The first word is simply:
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.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
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.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
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].
Thanks for the update… would sincerely love a site so I can read and learn
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 personal religious beliefs, but detailed references concerned the facts of the thread. You have not responded to the specific citation in Hebrews that describe God and Jesus Christ as separate Gods. Just saying it is wrong is not adequate.
My posts are detailed with references, everyone with a basic high school education can understand standard English, You on the other hand ha dodged the content of my posts, and failed to respond to specific questions,
Please answer the question: Do you believe the Pentateuch is literal history as do the Hebrew authors, authors of the NT, and the Church Fathers?
Last edited:
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.
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."
And what kind of a bizarre statement is "everyone with a basic high school education can understand standard English"? Everyone? Even those in foreign countries? And what is "standard English"? As opposed to nonstandard?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote "Do you believe the Pentateuch is literal history as do the Hebrew authors, authors of the NT, and the Church Fathers?" The Pentateuch is a lot more than "literal history". Among other things, it establishes God's first covenant (the law) with His chosen people.
And do you believe that the tale of Adam, Eve, and "the serpent" is literal? When have snakes talked?
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 . . .
Last edited:
You've talked to the authors?
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.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
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".
No, I have provided facts. Here are the excerpts from the Bible.
1) Matthew 16:22-23, "So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him: “God forbid, Lord! This must not happen to you!” But he [Jesus] turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”
2) Galatians 2:11-12, "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this[e] and separated himself[f] because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision.
As I wrote earlier, Jesus called Peter "Satan" and a "stumbling block" (the exact opposite of "the rock" Petros). And Paul showed Peter's hypocritical behavior in Galatia.
And there is more...
Matthew 26:31-34, Then Jesus said to them, “This night you will all fall away because of me, for it is written:
‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’
But after I am raised, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” Peter said to him, “If they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!” Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.”
Matthew 26:69-75, "Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. A slave girl[cm] came to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” But he denied it in front of them all:[1] “I don’t know what you’re talking about!” When he went out to the gateway, another slave girl saw him and said to the people there, “This man was with Jesus the Nazarene.” He denied it again with an oath, “I do not know the man![2] After a little while, those standing there came up to Peter and said, “You really are one of them too—even your accent gives you away!” At that he began to curse, and he swore with an oath, “I do not know the man!” [3] At that moment a rooster crowed. Then Peter remembered what Jesus had said: “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.
And I didn't mention that he was violent! John 18:10-11, "Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, pulled it out and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear. (Now the slave’s name was Malchus.)
What I wrote are not opinions, they are Biblical facts. => Peter was a deeply flawed, violent man <= You can claim whatever you want about him but the Bible shows the truth about who he was.
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
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.
lipping the end...
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.
The first word is simply:
Strong's Greek: 1577. ἐκκλησία (ekklésia) -- an assembly, a (religious) congregation
If you are talking about the second century - it simply and correctly means “universal” - before the denomination was created